3.13 El Dorado County 2012 SWMP-Vol 2

8/13/2019 3.13 El Dorado County 2012 SWMP-Vol 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/313-el-dorado-county-2012-swmp-vol-2 1/197

El Dorado County Solid Waste Management Plan

V O L U M E I I

Detailed Strategies and Support

January 31, 2012

Tahoe Basin Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority



Table of Contents

Section Page

1. Introduction ....................................................................................... 1-1

2. Profile of County Solid Waste System ............................................. 2-1

A. County Franchise Areas ............................................................................. 2-B. Community Services .................................................................................. 2-

3. El Dorado County Population andWaste Projections 2010 to 2030 ....................................................... 3-1

A. Population ....................................................................... .......................... 3-1B. Waste Projections and Characterization ..................................................... 3-

4. Phase 1: Near-Term Strategies ........................................................ 4-1

5. Phase 2: Intermediate-Term Strategies .......................................... 5-1

6. Phase 3: Long-Term Strategies ........................................................ 6-1

Appendix Page

A. Background for El Dorado County Populationand Waste Projections 2010 to 2030 .............................................. A-1

B. Future West Slope EcoPark Facility Size andConceptual Layout .......................................................................... B-1

C. Clean Versus Dirty Materials Recovery Facilities ......................... C-1

D. EcoPark Material Processing Operations andFacility Features ............................................................................... D-1

E. Alternative Potential Locations for a West Slope EcoPark ............ E-1

F. Union Mine Landfill Site Utilization Assessment .............................. F-1

G. Alternative Technologies for Disposal and Diversion.................. G-1

H. El Dorado County GIS Map – Unincorporated Parcels ................ H-1

I. Small Volume Transfer Stations ....................................................... I-1



Table of Contents

ii El Dorado County Solid Waste Management Plan

[This page intentionally left blank.]



Section 1

Introduction



1. Introduction

Volume II of the El Dorado County Solid Waste Management Plan containsbackground data, detailed strategy descriptions, and supporting materials. Thisvolume is intended to serve as a reference to the Volume I Executive Summary.

Sections 1 through 3 of this volume provide background information on theCounty’s current solid waste management system, population, and waste projectionsthrough 2030. Sections 4 through 6 of this volume provide detailed descriptions of thePlan’s 42 strategies, with one section per planning phase.Exhibit 1-1, on the followingpage, identifies the Section and page number where each strategy description can befound. Appendices A through I of this volume provide background information,analyses, and descriptions that contributed to the development of the Plan.

Plan DevelopmentThe County began the planning process in 2009. The Environmental Management

Department, working with the El Dorado County Solid Waste Advisory Committee(EDSWAC), developed a Request for Proposal (RFP) to identify a contractor to assistthe County in developing a solid waste management Plan. The County selectedNewPoint Group Management Consultants, along with subcontractor BASEngineering. NewPoint Group worked with the County and EDSWAC to develop aplanning vision and several iterations of draft Plan documents. The two volume finaldraft Plan (this document) is now available to the public and Board of Supervisors for a45-day public comment period. The final Plan, reflecting public comments, will beapproved by the Board of Supervisors in the fall of 2011.



1 Introduction

1-2 El Dorado County Solid Waste Management Plan

Exhibit 1-1Summary of Strategies and Strategy Description Location Page 1 of 2

Objectives and StrategiesSection 3(Phase 1)

Section 4(Phase 2)

Section 5(Phase 3)

PageNumber

A. Objective 1 – Develop Authorities for Future Solid Waste Management

Strategy 1.1 – Create a West Slope Joint Powers Authority (JPA) X 4-4

Strategy 1.2 – Conduct County Waste Characterization Studies X 4-13

Strategy 1.3 – Extend Use of and Modify WERS Facility as Needed X 4-14

Strategy 1.4 – Expand Mandatory Residential Collection Ordinance X 4-16

Strategy 1.5 – Create a Regional Joint Powers Authority X 6-3

Strategy 1.6 – Conduct Procurement(s) to Obtain Franchised Service Providers X 4-21

B. Objective 2 – Create New and Enhanced County Solid Waste Management Programs and Services

Source Reduction

Strategy 2.1 – Implement New Waste Reduction Actions X 5-2

Strategy 2.2 – Use Greater Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) Pricing Programs X 4-21

Strategy 2.3 – Expand Use of Purchasing Preference Practices X 4-22

Recycling Collection and Processing

Strategy 2.4 – Implement Mandatory Commercial Recycling Program X 4-24

Strategy 2.5 – Enhance and Enforce the Construction and Demolition Ordinance X 4-25

Strategy 2.6 – Expand Use of Curbside Recycling Programs (Targeted to Selected Areas) X 4-26

Strategy 2.7 – Expand Residential Cart Collection Systems (Targeted to Selected Areas) X 4-26

Strategy 2.8 – Enhance Existing School and Park Recycling Programs(and Implement Where Necessary) X 4-27

Strategy 2.9 – Expand Diversion Programs at Public Facilities X 4-28

Strategy 2.10 – Expand Multi-Family Recycling Program X 4-29

Strategy 2.11 – Expand Types of Recyclables Collected Curbside X 5-3

Organics and Composting Practices

Strategy 2.12 – Develop Commercial Food Waste Collection Program X 5-4

Strategy 2.13 – Enhance Home Composting Programs X 4-30

Strategy 2.14 – Prepare for Possible Elimination of Residential Yard Waste Burningon the West Slope

X 6-3

Strategy 2.15 – Develop Community Composting Programs X 5-5

Strategy 2.16 – Develop Residential Food Waste Collection Programs X 5-6

Public Education Strategy 2.17 – Advance Outreach and Education Programs X 4-31

Evolve Collection Trucks and Equipment to Improve Carbon Emissions

Strategy 2.18 – Reduce Emissions from Collection Fleets X 5-7

Strategy 2.19 – Use Advanced Technologies for Collection Trucks and Vehicles X 6-8



1-3

Exhibit 1-1Summary of Strategies and Strategy Description Location (continued) Page 2 of 2

Objectives and Strategies Section 3(Phase 1)

Section 4(Phase 2)

Section 5(Phase 3)

PageNumber

C. Objective 3 – Create Solid Waste Management Facility Infrastructure

Strategy 3.1 – Evaluate, Finalize, Plan, and Initiate Facility Infrastructure Strategies X 4-3

Strategy 3.2 – Develop a West Slope EcoPark X 6-9

Strategy 3.3 – Re-Open Union Mine Landfill X 6-14

Strategy 3.4 – Develop El Dorado County Composting Facility X 5-8

Strategy 3.5 – Develop Two (2) Small Volume Rural Transfer/Buy-back Facilities andStrategically Placed Debris Boxes on the West Slope X 4-32

Strategy 3.6 – Plan for Conversion Technologies, if Economically and Operationally Feasible X 6-16

Strategy 3.7 – Enhance County Composting Facility to Manage Diverted Food Wasteand Other Organics X 6-18

Strategy 3.8 – Renovate South Lake Tahoe (SLT) Material Recovery Facility andTransfer Station to Accept Single Stream Recyclables X 6-19

Strategy 3.9 – Develop West Slope C&D Processing Facility X 4-33

Strategy 3.10 – Develop Modern and Economical MRF/Transfer Station on the West Slope X 5-9

D. Objective 4 – Provide Alternative Sources of Funding for New Facilities, Programs, and Services

Strategy 4.1 – Revise Rate System to Fund New Facilities and Programs X 4-34

Strategy 4.2 – Develop South Lake Tahoe MRF/Transfer Station, West Slope EcoParkand Union Mine Landfill Fees X 6-20

Strategy 4.3 – Add Administrative Fee to Future Union Mine Landfill Tipping Fee X 6-21

Strategy 4.4 – Increase Union Mine Landfill Methane Gas Production X 6-21

Strategy 4.5 – Create New Funding Sources and Rate Mitigation Strategies X 5-10

E. Objective 5 – Determine and Implement Appropriate Performance Metric Tracking

Strategy 5.1 – Identify Appropriate Performance Metric for Each Selected Strategy X X X 4-3

Strategy 5.2 – Summarize, Report and Evaluate Metric Data X X 5-11



1 Introduction





Section 2

Profile of County Solid Waste System



2. Profile of County SolidWaste System

In this section, we provide an overview of El Dorado County services areas for thesix (6) current franchises the County has for waste management services. We alsoprovide a summary of current El Dorado County services offered to Countycustomers. This section is organized as follows:

A. County Franchise AreasB. Community Services.

A. County Franchise AreasThe County has solid waste collection franchise agreements with the following six (

companies, two of which are Waste Connections companies, and three of which areSouth Tahoe Refuse companies. In addition, two cities and two Community ServiceDistricts (CSDs) in the County have separate franchise agreements:

A. Waste Connections of California1. Amador Disposal Service – West Slope2. El Dorado Disposal Services – West Slope

a. Unincorporatedb. City of Placervillec. El Dorado Hills CSDd. Cameron Park CSD

B. South Tahoe Refuse Company3. American River Disposal Service – East Slope4. Sierra Disposal Service – West Slope5. South Tahoe Refuse Company – East Slope

a. Unincorporatedb. City of South Lake Tahoe

C. Tahoe-Truckee Sierra Disposal Company 6. Tahoe-Truckee Sierra Disposal – East Slope.

The six companies that service six (6) different unincorporated County areas, two (2cities, and two (2) CSDs, are shown inExhibit 2-1, on page 2-3. In the 1970s, nearlyforty years ago, the County established these geographic areas based on legacy factorssuch as road/bridge infrastructure and proximity to landfill sites.

The County distinguishes between West Slope service areas and East Slope servicesareas. The West Slope service areas include areas within the current boundaries of thesolid waste collection franchises for (1) Amador Disposal Service, (2) El Dorado



2 Profile of County Solid Waste System


Table 2-1Summary of Solid Waste Collection Franchisees and Service Areas

Region Parent Company Company Estimated Number ofResidential Customers a

Areas Served

WestSlope

A. Waste Connectionsof California

A.1 Amador Disposal Service 1,226 South County (Somerset,Grizzly Flats, and Mt. Aukum)

A.2 El Dorado Disposal Services(unincorporated County)

12,995 West County along Highway 50Corridor (Pollock Pines west toEl Dorado Hills)

A.3 El Dorado Disposal Services(Cameron Park CommunityServices District)

5,890 Cameron Park CSD

A.4 El Dorado Disposal Services(El Dorado Hills CommunityServices District)

12,095 El Dorado Hills CSD

A.5 El Dorado Disposal Services(City of Placerville)

3,063 City of Placerville

B. South TahoeRefuse Company

B.1 Sierra Disposal Service 4,795 North County (Coloma, PilotHill, Cool, Lotus, Georgetown,Garden Valley, Greenwood,and Auburn Lake Trails)

EastSlope

B. South TahoeRefuse Company

B.2 American River Disposal Service 247 High Mountain County (PacificHouse, Crystal Basin, Kyburz,Strawberry, and Echo Summit)

B.3 South Tahoe Refuse Company(unincorporated County)

5,943 South Lake Tahoe Basin(Meyers, Christmas Valley,and Hope Valley)

B.4 South Tahoe Refuse Company(City of South Lake Tahoe)

9,251 City of South Lake Tahoe

C. Tahoe-Truckee

Sierra Disposal

C.1 Tahoe-Truckee Sierra Disposal 757 West Lake Tahoe Basin (Meeks

Bay, Rubicon, and Tahoma)Total 56,262

a A county customer could equate to approximately 2.5 to 3.0 persons in the County population.

Disposal Services, and (3) Sierra DisposalService.1 East Slope service areas are thoseserved by (1) American River Disposal Service,(2) South Tahoe Refuse Company, and (3)Tahoe-Truckee Sierra Disposal.1

Table 2-1, above, summarizes the franchisecompanies, estimated number of residentialcustomers, and areas served. As shown in Table 2-1, Waste Connections companies serveapproximately 63 percent of the County’s

1 Source: Franchise Agreements between the County and the haulers.

residential accounts. South Lake Tahoe Refusecompanies serve another approximately 36 percentof the County’s residential accounts, while Tahoe-Truckee Sierra Disposal serves approximately one(1) percent of the County’s residential accounts.

El Dorado Disposal Services (Waste Connections)also serves Cameron Park (Cameron Park CommunityServices District), El Dorado Hills (El Dorado HillsCommunity Service District), and the City ofPlacerville under separate franchises. Finally, SouthTahoe Refuse Company, also serves the City ofSouth Lake Tahoe, under a separate franchise.



Exhibit 2-1Areas Served by Six County Solid Waste Collection Franchise Companies

1 This landfill location may change. In the past five years, County waste also has been disposed of at the Forward Landfill inManteca and Keifer Landfill in Sacramento.





Western El Dorado Recovery Systems, a company with common ownership to El Dorado DisposalService, provides transfer station and MaterialsRecovery Facility (MRF) operations, and an on-sitecertified recycling redemption and free householdhazardous waste (HHW) center for variouscustomers on the West Slope of the County.

South Lake Tahoe MRF and Transfer Station,owned by South Tahoe Refuse Company, servesthe surrounding Lake Tahoe area, and operates aMRF/transfer station, a resource recovery facility,two buy-back centers, and a free HHW program forvarious customers on the East Slope of the County.Tahoe-Truckee Sierra Disposal Company operatesa transfer station and MRF, a buyback center, anda HHW operation at the Eastern Regional Landfilland Transfer Station in unincorporated PlacerCounty, near Truckee, California.

B. Community Services1. Residential Solid Waste

Collection Service Levels

Current County residential solid wastecollection service levels for refuse, curbsiderecycling, and yard waste services are shown inExhibit 2-2, on page 2-5. This exhibit identifiescontainer sizes, container types, and collectionfrequencies, for each of the franchise areas.

a. Residential Refuse Services

Pursuant to Section 6 of the Franchise Agreements,between the County and its franchise agreementcompanies, refuse services occur once-a-week. ForCounty residential refuse collection services, refuse ispicked up once a week in all service areas. However,County customers are offered different service leveloptions in terms of container size and container type,depending on the service area. For example, in themore urban portions of the County (e.g., Placerville,

Cameron Park CSD and El Dorado Hills CSD),served by El Dorado Disposal Service, customers selecta refuse cart (provided by the company serving thearea), from the following sizes:

El Dorado Disposal Service, CameronPark CSD – 64 or 96-gallon cart

El Dorado Disposal Service, El DoradoHills CSD – 35, 64 or 96-gallon cart

El Dorado Disposal Service, City ofPlacerville – 32, 64 or 96-gallon cart.

For the more rural County areas, customersgenerally provide their own can(s), and decidethe number of cans for refuse service, as follows:

American River Disposal Service, CountyFranchise Area – 32 or 45-gallon can(s)

Sierra Disposal Service, County Franchise Area – 32 or 45-gallon can(s)

South Tahoe Refuse Company, CountyFranchise Area – Unlimited can(s)

Tahoe-Truckee Sierra Disposal, CountyFranchise Area – 32-gallon can(s).

There are two collection areas with both canand cart service options available to the customers.Customers can choose between can service andcart service, as follows:

Amador Disposal Service, CountyFranchise Area – 32 or 45-gallon can(s),or a 96-gallon cart

El Dorado Disposal Service, CountyFranchise Area – 32 or 45-gallon can(s),or a 64 or 96-gallon cart.

b. Residential Curbside Recycling Services

Depending on the service area, there are two typesof residential curbside recycling container optionsoffered to County customers, blue bag or cart. Bluebags are collected weekly, or bi-weekly, and the larger64- and 96-gallon carts are collected bi-weekly.



2-5

Exhibit 2-2Solid Waste Collection Service Levels for El Dorado County

No. Company/Area

Service Type

ResidentialRefuse*

ResidentialCurbside

Recycling*

Residential Yard Waste*

CommercialRefuse

CommercialRecycling

CommercialGreen and Food

A Waste Connections of California 1.0 Amador

Disposal Service32 or 45-galloncan(s), or96-gallon cart,

weekly

Blue bag inthe cans,

weekly

None Variety ofbins and debrisboxes available

Free serviceavailable

2.0 El DoradoDisposal Services

2.1 – Cameron Park(Mandatory)

64 or 96-galloncart, weekly

64-gallon or96-galloncart,bi-weekly

96-galloncarts,bi-weekly

Variety ofbins and debrisboxes available


Utilizedrop off bins

2.2 – City of Placerville

(Mandatory)

32, 64, or

96-gallon cart, weekly

64-gallon

or 96-galloncart,bi-weekly

96-gallon

carts,bi-weekly

Variety of

bins and debrisboxes available

Free service

available;95 percent ofcommercialbusinesseshave accounts

2.3 – El Dorado Hills(Mandatory)

35, 64, or96-gallon cart,

weekly

64-gallon or96-galloncart,bi-weekly

96-galloncarts,bi-weekly



Available, but onlylimited number ofcommercial green

waste accounts

2.4 – UnincorporatedCounty Area

32 or 45-galloncan(s), or64 or 96-galloncart, weekly

64 or 96-gallon carts,or blue bags,bi-weekly

96-galloncarts, bags,or bundles,bi-weekly



B South Tahoe Refuse Company

3.0 American RiverDisposal Service

32 or 45-galloncan(s), weekly

Blue bags, weekly

None,material issorted at MRF

Options percubic yard orper can

4.0 SierraDisposal Service

32 or 45-galloncan(s), weekly

Blue bags, weekly

None Variety of cans,bins and debrisboxes available

Free serviceavailable;cardboard andcommingledrecyclables

5.0 South TahoeRefuse Company

Unlimitedcan(s), weekly

Blue bags, weekly

Collectionavailable –

wood chips,pine needlepilot


Free serviceavailable –blue bag andvarious options

Collecting food waste fromcommercial ina pilot program

C Tahoe-Truckee Sierra Disposal Company

6.0 Tahoe-TruckeeSierra Disposal

32-galloncan(s), weekly

Blue bags(outside refusecontainer),

weekly

None Variety ofbins available

* Carts are provided by the companies. Cans are provided by customers. Multi-family recycling programs are minimal, but available.Educational outreach and school recycling are also available, on request.





In areas served by El Dorado DisposalServices, most customers are offered a bi-weeklycart option for curbside commingled recyclingservices (up to two, 64-, or 96-gallon cartsprovided by the company). Recycling services areas follows:

64-gallon or 96-gallon carts, biweekly –Cameron Park CSD, El Dorado HillsCSD, and City of Placerville

64-gallon or 96-gallon carts, or blue bags,bi-weekly – El Dorado Disposal ServicesUnincorporated County area.

In addition to El Dorado Disposal Services,there are four other County franchise areas

with weekly blue bag curbside recycling service,as follows:

Blue bags – Amador Disposal Service, American River Disposal Service, SierraDisposal Service, South Tahoe RefuseCompany, and Tahoe-Truckee SierraDisposal franchise areas.

Residential curbside recycling service rates areincluded in the standard refuse collection servicesfor most customers, except that in the Countyfranchise area served by Tahoe-Truckee SierraDisposal, the customer must provide their ownblue bag for curbside recycling service.

c. Residential Yard Waste Services

In the County, El Dorado Disposal Services isthe only franchise company that provides residentialyard waste services to its customers. El DoradoDisposal Services provides curbside 96-gallon cartservices, bi-weekly, for yard waste to most of itscustomers, such as customers in the Cameron ParkCSD, El Dorado Hills CSD, the City of Placervilleand the Unincorporated County area.

The El Dorado Disposal MRF at 4100Throwita Way also accepts yardwaste for a fee.In the Unincorporated County area, El Dorado

Disposal Services also provides yard waste serviceoptions, such as bags, or bundles. There is anadditional charge for Unincorporated Countyarea customers.

In the rest of the County franchise areas, thecompanies don’t provide residential yard wasteservice to their customers. In these service areas,instead of customers separating materials,materials are sorted at the South Tahoe RefuseTransfer Station dirty MRF. These Countyfranchise areas, without yard waste serviceavailable, are as follows:

Amador Disposal Service,County Franchise Area

American River Disposal Service,County Franchise Area Sierra Disposal Service,

County Franchise Area South Tahoe Refuse Company,

County Franchise Area.

In addition to the curbside yard waste servicesprovided by El Dorado Disposal Services, theCounty also presently employs a yard waste burnoption. County customers may burn treetrimmings, leaves, dry pine needles, and plantson their property during scheduled burn daysand times. As a result, these customers may notneed curbside yard waste services.

2. Commercial Bin and CartSolid Waste Collection

Similar to residential services, the six (6)franchise companies provide County commercial

solid waste collection services. Each companyserves its own exclusive franchise area, asdescribed for residential services above. Countycommercial customers are provided cart orbin collection services as shown inTable 2-2, on page 2-7.



2-7

Table 2-2El Dorado CountyCommercial Bin/Cart Refuse Collection Services(As of November 2010)

Company Refuse Can/Cart Sizes Refuse Bin Sizes/Frequencies

Amador Disposal Service 32-gallon or 45-gallon can(s) 1, 1.5, 2, or 6 cubic yard picked up 1 to 6 times per week

American River Disposal 32-gallon can(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 8 cubic yard picked up 1 to 6 times per week

El Dorado Disposal Service 32-gallon or 45-gallon can(s);64 or 96 gallon carts

1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 8 cubic yard picked up 1 to 6 times per week

Sierra Disposal Service 32-gallon or 45-gallon can(s) 1 cubic yard

South Tahoe Refuse Company 32-gallon can(s) 6 or 10 cubic yard picked up 1 to 6 times per week

Tahoe-Truckee Sierra Disposal 32-gallon can(s) 3, 4, or 6 cubic yard picked up 1 to 3 times per week

Table 2-3El Dorado CountyDebris Box Collection Services(As of November 2010)

Company Refuse Debris Box Sizes Recycling Debris Box Sizes Yard Debris Box Sizes

Amador Disposal Service 6, 10, 20, or 30 cubic yard N/A N/A

American River Disposal 10, 14, 15, 20, and 33 cubic yard N/A 33 cubic yard

El Dorado Disposal Service 6, 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 cubic yard N/A 20 or 30 cubic yard

Sierra Disposal Service 6, 20, or 30 cubic yard 30 cubic yard N/A

South Tahoe Refuse Company 10, 14, 15, 20, 33, or 40 cubic yard 33 cubic yard 33 or 40 cubic yard

Tahoe-Truckee Sierra Disposal 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 cubic yard N/A N/A

3. Debris Box Solid Waste Collection

As shown inTable 2-3, above, all six (6)franchises provide a range of different debris boxcollection services, ranging from 6 to 50 cubicyards in size. Some of the franchisees provideseparate recycling or yard waste debris boxes,ranging in size from 20 to 40 cubic yards.

4. Transfer Stations and Landfills

Transfer Station, Materials Recovery Facilities,and landfills are key elements in the County’ssolid waste collection system. County customerscurrently are served by three (3) MaterialsRecovery Facilities (MRFs) and transfer stations(two in-County), as follows:

Western El Dorado Recovery Systems(WERS) MRF, located in DiamondSprings, California (El Dorado County)

South Tahoe Refuse Transfer Station,located in South Lake Tahoe, California(El Dorado County)

Eastern Regional Transfer Station,located in Placer County.

Refuse is transferred to the Western El Dorado

Recovery Systems MRF, which is owned andoperated by El Dorado Disposal Services; theSouth Tahoe Refuse Transfer Station, which isowned and operated by South Tahoe RefuseCompany; and the Eastern Regional TransferStation/MRF which is operated by Tahoe-TruckeeSierra Disposal on Placer County owned land, forthe purposes of recovering and recycling material





Table 2-4El Dorado CountyMaterials Recovery Facility/Transfer Station Specifications*

Facility YearConstructed

Building Size(square feet)

Siteacreage

MaximumPermitted

Throughput

(tons per day)

PermittedCapacity

(tons per day)

PermittedOperations

Western El DoradoRecovery SystemsMaterials Recovery Facility

1996 10.14 400 400 Transfer/processing

South Tahoe Refuse EastSlope Transfer Station andResource Recovery Facility

2008 33,700 7.7 370 432 Transfer/processing,chipping and grinding

* The Eastern Regional Transfer Station, operated by Tahoe-Truckee Sierra Disposal,is excluded from this table because it is located in Placer County.

A profile of transfer station/material recovery

facilities located within El Dorado County isshown in Table 2-4, above. There are two (2)facilities within the County, one on the WestSlope and one on the East Slope. The East Slopefacility, located in the City of South Lake Tahoe,includes both a transfer station/“dirty MRF” anda newly constructed Resource Recovery Facility.Material types accepted by each in-CountyMRFs/transfer station are shown inTable 2-5, on page 2-9.

Recent facility diversion rates are shown inTable 2-6, on page 2-9. The WERS facilitydiversion rates averaged approximately 31percent between calendar years 2007 and 2009.The STR facility diversion rates averagedapproximately 40 percent between fiscal years2007 and 2009.

In addition, there are currently two landfills,all out-of-County, used by the six El DoradoCounty haulers, as follows:

Lockwood Landfill – located at Sparks,

Nevada (Washoe County) Potrero Hills Landfill – located in Solano

County, California.

These transfer facilities and landfills used byCounty franchise companies receive solid wastefrom the unincorporated areas and incorporatedcities via the County’s franchised haulers. Solid waste is generated from a mix of residential,commercial, and industrial sources in the County.

Refuse collection services are non-mandatoryfor the unincorporated County areas, except forthe South Tahoe Refuse County franchise area.County customers are not obligated to pay forrefuse collection services. Many customers preferto self-haul their refuse to a transfer station. Upto twenty (20) percent of total County refusevolume is self-hauled. However, refuse collectionservices are mandatory for Cameron Park CSD,El Dorado Hills CSD, the City of Placerville,

and the City of South Lake Tahoe.







Table 2-7El Dorado CountyMRF/Transfer Stations and Self-Haul Tipping Fees used by El Dorado County(As of July 2011)

MRF/Transfer Station Tipping Fee Per Ton Location

South Tahoe Refuse Transfer Station* $94.80 South Lake Tahoe, California

Western EL Dorado Recovery Systems MRF/Transfer Station 75.53 Diamond Springs, California

Eastern Regional Transfer Station 77.50 Placer County, California* Equivalent rate based on a conversion factor of 350 pounds per cubic yards for mixed waste. The rate is for 6 yards.

The Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) areone of the County’s key elements in meeting theState’s fifty (50) percent, Assembly Bill (AB) 939 waste reduction goal. All waste is sorted at thesefacilities to recover recyclable materials. Recoveredmaterials are cleaned and sold to market.

Table 2-7, above, provides a summary of thetipping fee information for each MRF/transferstation used by the County’s franchises. Theper ton tipping fee rates charged to Countycustomers range from $75.53 per ton to $94.80per ton for compacted mixed solid waste.

In the County, franchise companies use

different approaches to manage materials oncecollected. All companies transfer materialscollected to a MRF/transfer station first. TheCounty ultimately exports all solid waste out ofthe County for landfill disposal.Table 2-8, onpage 2-11, provides a summary of the wastemanagement approaches, and processes,employed by each County franchise company.

All franchised companies use MRF/transferstations to sort materials, and then transfer refuse

to landfills for disposal. Western El DoradoRecovery Systems consolidates and transfers refuseto Potrero Hills Landfill in Solano County,California. The South Tahoe Refuse MRF/Transfer Station and the Eastern Regional MRF/Transfer Station consolidate and transfer refuse toLockwood Landfill, located at Sparks, Nevada.

American River Disposal Service and SouthTahoe Refuse Company do not require customersto sort recyclables and yard waste, and insteadsorts all of the materials at its Materials RecoveryFacility (MRF), or “dirty MRF” in the City ofSouth Lake Tahoe.

Waste Connections collects and transfersrecyclable and yard waste materials at its WesternEl Dorado Recovery Systems (WERS). The currentmaterial throughput at the WERS facility is greaterthan the facility’s designed capacity. Withoutadditional investments, the facility will likely facea number of operational limitations such as tightself-haul drop off/turnaround areas, larger weekendtraffic volumes on City streets, limited materialstorage areas, and small overall site footprint.



2-11

Table 2-8MRF/Transfer Stations and Landfills for El Dorado County(As of November 2010)

No. CompanyMaterials

Recovery Facility/Transfer Station(s)

Landfill(s)RecyclableProcessing

Facility

GreenwasteProcessing

Facility

A Waste Connectionsof California

1.0 AmadorDisposal Service

Western El DoradoRecovery Systems,Diamond Springs,California

Potrero Hills Landfill,Solano County,California 1

Pacific Rim,Benecia, California

Lopez Ag Service,Sacramento,California

2.0 El DoradoDisposal Services



Pacific Rim,Benecia, California

Lopez Ag Service,Sacramento,California

B South TahoeRefuse Company

3.0 American RiverDisposal Service

South Tahoe RefuseTransfer Station,South Lake Tahoe,California

Lockwood Landfill,Sparks, Nevada


Bently Agrowdynamics,Minden, Nevada

4.0 SierraDisposal Service



Recycling Industries Bently Agrowdynamics,Minden, Nevada

5.0 South TahoeRefuse Company




Bently Agrowdynamics,Minden, Nevada

C Tahoe-Truckee SierraDisposal Company

6.0 Tahoe-TruckeeSierra Disposal

Eastern RegionalTransfer Station/MRF, Placer County,California




1 In the past, El Dorado Disposal Service has also disposed of waste at the Forward Landfill in Manteca, California,and the Keifer Road Landfill in Sacramento, California.










3. El Dorado CountyPopulation and Waste

Projections 2010 to 2030This section of the Plan provides projections for El Dorado County population, wast

generation, and waste characterization through 2030. These projections provide thebaseline from which to plan waste management and diversion needs and opportunitiesfor the County. The population and waste projections draw on several different sourcesand represent the best possible projection, given the data available. Appendix A in thisvolume provides a more detailed explanation of the assumptions and calculations behinthe projections. The primary sources of these projections are as follows:

Population: The 2010 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) El Dorado

County Economic Forecast Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Regional Analysis District

population projections El Dorado Hills Community Services District population estimates and master

plan build-out California Department of Finance (DOF) population data for the County and for

South Lake Tahoe (including actual County population data for 2005 and 2010).

Waste Generation and Characterization: California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) (now CalRecycle)

disposal data for El Dorado County unincorporated, City of Placerville, andCity of South Lake Tahoe

CIWMB waste characterization studies Department of Finance population and housing data.

A. PopulationThis planning document divides the County into nine (9) regions. These regions

are based on the SACOG Regional Analysis Districts (RADs) used for planningpurposes.1 The regions are somewhat analogous to, but not the same as, existingfranchise regions.Figure 3-1, on page 3-2, illustrates the nine regions, as well asRADs and major jurisdictions. The nine regions are defined as follows:

1 The exception is the two Tahoe basin regions, which are not within SACOG. The RADs are areas defined bySACOG that are similar, but not identical, to community planning areas or cities. SACOG utilizes RAD forplanning and projection purposes.



3 El Dorado County Population and Waste Projections 2010 to 2030


Figure 3-1El Dorado CountyRegions and Jurisdiction

1.

Northwest County – this heavily ruralregion consists of three RADs: Pilot Hill,Georgetown, and Coloma-Lotus that makeup the northwestern portion of the county

2. El Dorado Hills – this region consists ofonly the El Dorado Hills RAD. This areaincludes, but extends slightly beyond,the El Dorado Hills Community ServiceDistrict (EDHCSD) boundary, and coversmuch of the western border of the county

3. Cameron Park – this region consists of the

northern half of the Cameron Park-ShingleSprings RAD, and includes the CameronPark Community Services District(CPCSD), just east of El Dorado Hills

4. West Central County – this primarilyrural region consists of the southern half ofthe Cameron Park-Shingle Springs RAD,plus two additional RADs: Diamond

Springs and Pollock Pines, covering muchof the area south of Placerville and east ofEl Dorado Hills

5. Mt. Aukum-Grizzly Flat – this heavilyrural region consists of the Mt. Aukum-Grizzly Flat RAD, covering most of thesouthern region of the county

6. Greater Placerville – this region includesthree RADs: West Placerville, EastPlacerville, and South Placerville.The region includes the incorporated

City of Placerville, but extends beyondthe Placerville city limits

7. El Dorado High Country – this heavilyrural region consists of the El DoradoHigh Country RAD, and covers much ofthe northern county, including some ofthe east slope



3-3

Table 3-1El Dorado CountyPopulation Estimates a by Region(2005 to 2030)

Region 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Growth

2010 to 2020Growth

2020 to 2030

Northwest County 21,092 21,136 21,203 21,413 21,581 21,598 1.3% 0.9%

El Dorado Hills 31,222 36,000 41,511 47,042 51,938 57,344 30.7% 21.9%

Cameron Park 13,629 14,786 14,988 15,620 15,770 15,786 5.6% 1.1%

West Central County 40,635 43,025 43,402 44,582 45,462 45,553 3.6% 2.2%

Mt. Aukum-Grizzly Flat 13,950 13,993 13,999 14,017 14,268 14,294 0.2% 2.0%

Greater Placerville 18,415 18,818 18,941 19,326 19,852 19,906 2.7% 3.0%

El Dorado High Country 3,147 3,174 3,168 3,151 3,263 3,275 -0.7% 3.9%

Tahoe Basin Area 6,993 7,000 7,033 7,055 7,076 7,098 0.8% 0.6%

South Lake Tahoe 23,904 24,087 24,329 24,573 24,820 25,069 2.0% 2.0%

Total 172,987 182,019 188,574 196,779 204,030 209,923 8.1% 6.7%a Appendix A provides a detailed description of the population projection methodology.

8. Tahoe Basin Area – this region of thecounty is not within the SACOG area.This region includes most of the east slopeportions of the county in the Tahoe basin, with the exception of the City of SouthLake Tahoe

9. South Lake Tahoe – this region of thecounty is not within the SACOG area.The region includes the incorporatedCity of South Lake Tahoe.

Table 3-1, above, provides populationprojections by region, and for the county overallfrom 2005 to 2030. Figure 3-2, on page 3-4,provides a graphical representation of populationprojections. These El Dorado County population

projections are more conservative thanprojections developed a few years ago by DOFand SACOG. Prior to the 2008/09 recession, ElDorado County was one of the fastest growingcounties in the state, with projections for highgrowth through our projection period. However,growth in the county came to almost a completestandstill in 2009 and growth remains slow

today. These projections do take into accountexpected growth by region, as some areas (thetwo community service districts) are expected togrow more rapidly, while others are projected tohave very little growth.

The total population of El Dorado County isprojected to increase just over 8 percent between2010 and 2020, to 196,779, with an additional6.7 percent increase between 2020 and 2030, to209,923. Among the nine El Dorado Countyregions defined for this study, El Dorado Hillshas the greatest projected growth, at 30.7 percentover the next ten years, slowing somewhat to21.9 percent between 2020 and 2030. TheCameron Park region is projected to have 5.6

percent growth in the next ten years, slowing to1.1 percent between 2020 and 2030. South LakeTahoe and Placerville, the two incorporated citiesin the County, are projected to have relativelylow growth over the twenty year period. Projectedgrowth in the county’s more rural areas is alsoprojected to be low.



3 El Dorado County Population and Waste Projections 2010 to 2030


Figure 3-2El Dorado CountyActual and Projected Population, by Region(2005 to 2030)

Table 3-2Waste Disposal Projections by Region(2010 to 2030)

Region Tons/person 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Northwest County 0.67 14,044 14,099 14,239 14,351 14,362

El Dorado Hills 0.67 23,922 27,605 31,283 34,539 38,134

Cameron Park 0.67 9,826 9,967 10,387 10,487 10,498

West Central County 0.67 28,591 28,863 29,647 30,233 30,293

Mt. Aukum-Grizzly Flat 0.67 9,299 9,310 9,322 9,488 9,506

Greater Placerville 0.59 11,068 11,138 11,364 11,673 11,705

El Dorado High Country 0.67 2,109 2,107 2,095 2,170 2,178

Tahoe Basin Area 1.05 7,378 7,413 7,436 7,458 7,481

South Lake Tahoe 1.39 33,484 33,817 34,157 34,500 34,846

Total 139,721 144,319 149,930 154,899 159,003



3-5

Table 3-3Calculation of Tons Disposal/Person forSouth Lake Tahoe

2010

Estimated Tons Disposed 33,484

Population 24,087Tons/person 1.39

B. Waste Projectionsand Characterization

Table 3-2, on page 3-4, provides wasteprojections for the County through 2030 overalland by region. These projections are based on perperson waste disposal, by jurisdiction, for 2010,multiplied by population projections from Table3-1. Table 3-3, above, provides an example ofthe tons/person calculation in Table 3-2 forSouth Lake Tahoe. The tons disposed data arefrom the CIWMB/CalRecycle actual reporteddisposal tonnages for the jurisdiction. Thepopulation data are from the CaliforniaDepartment of Finance. The tons/person foreach year is equal to tons disposed divided by

population. The average tons/person for 2010 is1.39. The County generated just over 139,000tons in 2010, with generation estimated toincrease to just under 150,000 tons by 2020.

The greatest increase in waste disposal overthe 20 year planning period results from theprojected population increase in El Dorado Hills.The South Lake Tahoe region is another large-volume generating region due to the higher percapita waste generation, likely resulting from theinfluence of tourism. The West Central Countyis the third major generating region due to theregion’s relatively large population. A primary

difference between regions is that in El DoradoHills and South Lake Tahoe, much of the wastegeneration is concentrated in a relatively smallgeographical area, while in West Central County,

waste generation is spread more evenlythroughout the small communities in the region.

Waste characterization data are based onCalRecycle’s 2008 waste characterization data forthe state, by sector (commercial, single family,multi-family, and self-haul). The statewide data

was adjusted to reflect the County’s mix of singlefamily and multi-family households (El DoradoCounty has a higher proportion of single familyhomes than the statewide average), and checkedagainst County-specific waste characterizationsdone prior to 2008. Table 3-4, on page 3-6,provides the percentages and tons of wastedisposed, by material type, for 2010. Appendix Aprovides additional detail on waste generation anddiversion requirements to meet the 75 percentdiversion target.

The data in Table 3-4 are based on CalRecycle’s waste characterization, and thus reflect only thematerials that are disposed, not diverted. These

data reflect existing diversion levels (statewide)for paper, organics, and other recyclables. Thus,to the extent that materials in Table 3-4 can bediverted, these tonnages represent opportunitiesto increase County diversion. For example,approximately 30,000 tons of paper will bedisposed in the County in 2010, with more thanone-half coming from the commercial sector.Much of this material could potentially be divertedthrough increased commercial and residential paperecycling, or reduced through waste reductionprograms. Other material categories that representsignificant diversion potential include: food, otherorganics, inerts and other (C&D), and plastic.





Section 4

Phase 1: Near-Term Strategies



4. Phase 1:Near-Term Strategies

This section describes the near-term strategies for the County’s future solid wastemanagement system.Exhibit 4-1, on page 4-2, summarizes twenty-one (21) strategiesto implement in the near-term. The near-term is defined as the five-year periodfrom 2011 through 2016. During this time the County should implement several keystrategies, and may begin planning for additional strategies. The emphasis duringPhase 1 will be comprehensive program implementation, combined with facilityupgrades and future facility planning. The right-most columns of Exhibit 4-1 show

whether the strategy is designed to move the County toward a 75 percent diversionrate, or whether the strategy is currently a State-mandated requirement.

The strategies in Phase 1 cover all five Plan objectives: Objective 1 – Develop Authorities for Future Solid Waste Management

Strategy 1.1 – Create a West Slope Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Strategy 1.2 – Conduct County Waste Characterization Studies Strategy 1.3 – Extend Use of and Modify WERS Facility as Needed Strategy 1.4 – Expand Mandatory Residential Collection Ordinance Strategy 1.6 – Conduct Procurement(s) to Obtain Franchised Service Provider(

Objective 2 – Create New and Enhanced County Solid Waste ManagementPrograms and Services

Strategy 2.2 – Use Greater Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) Pricing Programs Strategy 2.3 – Expand Use of Purchasing Preference Practices Strategy 2.4 – Implement Mandatory Commercial Recycling Program Strategy 2.5 – Enhance and Enforce the Construction andDemolition Ordinance

Strategy 2.6 – Expand Use of Curbside Recycling Programs(Targeted to Selected Areas)

Strategy 2.7 – Expand Residential Cart Collection Systems(Targeted to Selected Areas)

Strategy 2.8 – Enhance Existing School, Park, and Community FacilityRecycling Programs (and implement where necessary)

Strategy 2.9 – Expand Diversion Programs at Public Facilities Strategy 2.10 – Expand Multi-Family Recycling Program Strategy 2.13 – Enhance Home Composting Programs Strategy 2.17 – Advance Outreach and Education Programs



4. Phase 1: Near Term Strategies


Exhibit 4-1Phase 1 Strategies Page 1 of 2

Objectives and StrategiesEast

SlopeWestSlope

PageNumber

Strategy to Moveto 75% Diversion

State-MandatedRequirement

Objective 1 – Develop Authorities for Future Solid Waste Management

Strategy 1.1 – Create a West Slope Joint Powers Authority (JPA) X 4-4 X

Strategy 1.2 – Conduct County WasteCharacterization Studies X X 4-13

Strategy 1.3 – Extend Use of and Modify WERS Facility as Needed X 4-14 X

Strategy 1.4 – Expand Mandatory ResidentialCollection Ordinance X X 4-16 X

Strategy 1.6 – Conduct Procurements to ObtainFranchised Service Provider(s) X X 4-21

Objective 2 – Create New and Enhanced County Solid Waste Management Programs and Services

Source Reduction

Strategy 2.2 – Use Greater Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT)Pricing Programs X X 4-21 X

Strategy 2.3 – Expand Use of PurchasingPreference Practices X X 4-22 X


Strategy 2.4 – Implement Mandatory CommercialRecycling Program X X 4-24 X

Strategy 2.5 – Enhance and Enforce the Constructionand Demolition Ordinance X X 4-25 X

Strategy 2.6 – Expand Use of Curbside RecyclingPrograms (Targeted to Selected Areas) X X 4-26 X

Strategy 2.7 – Expand Residential Cart CollectionSystems (Targeted to Selected Areas) X X 4-26 X

Strategy 2.8 – Enhance Existing School, Park, andCommunity Facility Recycling Programs(and implement where necessary)

X X 4-27 X

Strategy 2.9 – Expand Diversion Programs atPublic Facilities X X 4-28 X

Strategy 2.10 – Expand Multi-Family Recycling Program X X 4-29 X


Strategy 2.13 – Enhance Home Composting Programs X X 4-30 X

Public Education

Strategy 2.17 – Advance Outreach andEducation Programs X X 4-31 X



4-3

Exhibit 4-1Phase 1 Strategies (continued) Page 2 of 2

Objectives and Strategies EastSlope

WestSlope

PageNumber



Objective 3 – Create Solid Waste Management Facility Infrastructure

Strategy 3.1 – Evaluate, Finalize, Plan, and InitiateFacility Infrastructure Strategies X X 4-31

Strategy 3.5 – Develop Small Volume RuralTransfer Facilities and StrategicallyPlaced Debris Boxes on the West Slope

X 4-32 X

Strategy 3.9 – Develop West Slope C&DProcessing Facility X 4-33 X

Objective 4 – Provide Alternative Sources of Funding for New Facilities, Programs, and Services

Strategy 4.1 – Revise Rate System to Fund NewFacilities and Programs X X 4-34

Objective 5 – Determine and Implement Appropriate Performance TrackingStrategy 5.1 – Identify Appropriate Performance Metric

for Each Selected Strategy X X 4-38





Objective 3 – Create Solid WasteManagement Facility Infrastructure

Strategy 3.1 – Evaluate, Finalize,Plan, and Initiate FacilityInfrastructure Strategies

Strategy 3.5 – Develop Small VolumeRural Transfer Facilities and StrategicallyPlaced Debris Boxes on the West Slope

Strategy 3.9 – Develop West SlopeC&D Processing Facility

Objective 4 – Provide Alternative Sourcesof Funding for New Facilities, Programs,and Services

Strategy 4.1 – Revise Rate System toFund New Facilities and Programs

Objective 5 – Determine and Implement Appropriate Performance Tracking

Strategy 5.1 – Identify AppropriatePerformance Metric for EachSelected Strategy.

The remainder of this section describes eachof the 21 Phase 1 strategies. The strategies areorganized by Objective. The following isprovided for each strategy:

An overview discussion of the strategy, thestatus of current County related activitiesor facilities, and rationale for the strategy

Preliminary high-level costs and benefitsfor the strategy

Barriers/challenges (and potentialsolutions) for the strategy

Implementation timing, strategies andnext steps.

A. Objective 1 – Develop Authorities for Future CountySolid Waste Management

Strategy 1.1 – Create a West Slope JointPowers Authority (JPA)

Description and Rationale

The jurisdictions on the County’s West Slopeshould form a joint powers (waste management)authority (JPA) called the West Slope JPA(WSJPA). The WSJPA should include thefollowing four (4) member agencies:

City of Placerville El Dorado County

Cameron Park Community ServicesDistrict (CPCSD) El Dorado Hills Community Services

District (EDHCSD).

Even with creation of this WSJPA, eachindividual member agency should maintain a largedegree of autonomy. For example, each memberagency should continue to have the individualpower to create and issue franchise agreements.Member agencies also will have the authority toestablish rates charged to their customers.

The WSJPA should be created as a joint powersauthority pursuant to Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5, Article 1 (Section 6500, et seq.) of the GovernmentCode of the State of California, commonly knownas the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (the JPA Act).This Act allows two or more public agencies to jointly exercise any power held in common.

WSJPA goals include:

Provide a unified and coordinated WestSlope solid waste management system

Develop and manage a regional West Countycomposting facility and C&D facility

Jointly measure disposal reduction bymember agencies



4-5

Provide joint planning, financing,administration, management, review,monitoring, and reporting of solid waste,recycling, and greenwaste activities

Use the most efficient strategies for source

reduction, recycling, and reuse Combine public education efforts for solid waste management services and programs

Provide economies-of-scale in developingnew West Slope solid waste facilities

Jointly issue revenue bonds, and otherindebtedness to pay for the operation,construction, acquisition, rehabilitation,and/or expansion of solid waste facilities

Meet the requirements of the California

Integrated Waste Management Act(Assembly Bill 939) Work together to meet current and future

California diversion requirements Work together on sustainability and AB 32 programs.

The WSJPA should be overseen by: A governing WSJPA Board of four (4)

members. The WSJPA Board will include

one member each from the El DoradoCounty Board of Supervisors, the El DoradoHills Community Services District Board ofDirectors, the Cameron Park CommunityServices District Board of Directors, andCity of Placerville City Council

Staffing for a WSJPA likely would be relativelyminimal initially. The WSJPA could be staffedusing existing member agency staff to minimizecosts. Proposed WSJPA staffing levels include:

A managing director (as required or ifappropriate, likely part-time) Up to two full-time equivalent employees

to support activities of the WSJPA (e.g.,secretarial support, accounting staff, andlegal staff).

The WSJPA should have, at a minimum,quarterly meetings. The WSJPA should developminutes of all meetings. The County auditorshould audit funds of the WSJPA.

The WSJPA should have the following powers: Adopt resolutions as authorized by law Adopt an annual budget, as appropriate Apply for grants Acquire, assume, site, license, construct,

finance, dispose, condemn, operate andmaintain (in part or by contracting out) soli waste management facilities, transfer statiolandfills, transformation facilities, MRFs,composting facilities, and HHW facilities

Develop bylaws Enter into contracts Incur debts, liabilities, or obligations Invest surplus funds Issue revenue bonds or obligations at the WSJPA Board deems appropriate

Plan and study alternative wastemanagement practices

Provide landfill closure andpost-closure planning

Seek funding from member agencies forcosts not funded through revenuesassociated with the WSJPA

Select facility operators.

The WSJPA should prepare the followingreports on behalf of the jurisdictions:

Non-disposal facility elements Disposal and diversion reports Annual reports.

Member agency responsibilities include: Ensure waste collected within their jurisdiction is directed to WSJPA facilities

Implement specific diversion programsselected for implementation by the WSJPA





Combine solid waste diversion percentagestogether to meet Cal Recycle mandates

Delegate disposal and non-disposalresponsibilities over solid waste to the WSJPA

Receive assessments by the WSJPA for civilpenalties imposed by Cal Recycle for a memberagency’s failure to meet AB 939 mandates

Make advances and contributions to the WSJPA and be repaid.

Costs/Benefits

There is a relatively minor cost (staff time, legalreview) for the parties to develop, review, andapprove a WSJPA agreement. A sample WSJPAagreement, based on one developed for the SouthLake Tahoe Basin Waste Management Authority, isprovided inExhibit 4-2, starting on page 4-7. Thecosts for member agency participation in developingthe WSJPA are relatively minor. On an ongoingbasis, the administrative costs for the WSPJA likely would range from $0 to $150,000 per year.1

By creating a West Slope JPA, member agenciesrealize economic benefits when coordinating newinvestments in regional facilities and equipmentthat may not be possible if pursued individually.

Barriers/Challenges (and Potential Solutions)

There is a relatively long track record ofsuccessful waste management JPAs in California.There are approximately 20 similar JPAs createdfor waste management purposes in California.Successful examples of neighboring JPAs, includingthe Western Placer Waste Management Authorityand South Lake Tahoe Basin Waste Management Authority, support creation of the WSJPA.

1 Depending on the extent of responsibilities of the WSJPA,the member agencies could offer to provide city, servicedistrict, or county staffing for the WSJPA rather than havingthe WSJPA hire its own staffing. For example, should theWSJPA not direct material flow to a facility, and assume a morelimited programmatic role, as opposed to one involving facilitydevelopment and management, WSJPA staffing supportrequirements would be minimal.

Development of a WSJPA is a key element inthe success of the County’s solid waste planning. A WSJPA would provide the foundation for thecooperative planning efforts contained in thisPlan. Implementation of this strategy is animportant first step in beginning to transform theCounty’s solid waste system.

Initially, there may be some jurisdictions thatbenefit more than others when converting fromindividual jurisdictional AB 939/SB 1016reporting to consolidated WSJPA reporting.Those that may not gain initially will need torealize that the long-term benefits of coordinatedintegrated waste management planning will offsetthe short-term initial AB 939 diversion reportingsetbacks. Coordinated West Slope programand facility planning is best done with all jurisdictions participating and directing theirmaterial flow to jointly developed and managedfacilities. Otherwise, the economics of WestSlope facility operations and management arelikely marginalized. Likewise, during this periodof financial hardship for local jurisdictions,opportunities for shared program and servicecosts are highly advantageous.

A challenge for the WSJPA is that the Boardand managing director would need to coordinatemember agency planning efforts while balancing,in many cases, the lack of ultimate authority torequire member agencies to carry these activitiesout. The WSJPA Board and managing directoroften would act in an advisory capacity. Toovercome the problem of responsibility withoutauthority, member agencies would need to workin the spirit of cooperation to achieve theirmutually beneficial goals.

As one offset to potential WSJPA barriers,member agencies would continue to exerciseindependent power within their own jurisdiction.For example, member agencies would establishtheir own franchise agreements for refusecollection and disposal.



4-7

Exhibit 4-2Sample West Slope Joint Powers AuthorityJoint Powers Agreement Page 1 of 6





Exhibit 4-2Sample West Slope Joint Powers AuthorityJoint Powers Agreement (continued) Page 2 of 6



4-9









4-11









4-13

Should the West Slope jurisdictions notimplement a WSJPA, this Plan can still moveforward. However, the West Slope jurisdictionsmay be less vested in jointly participating incoordinated facility development and Countywideplanning efforts. The WSJPA would strengthenthe resolve of the parties to work together toimplement the West Slope solid waste managementstrategies contained in this Plan.

Implementation Timing, Strategies,and Next Steps

The jurisdictions should form the WSJPA by atarget date of December 31, 2012. Steps toimplement the WSJPA include:

Member agency representatives meet torefine WSJPA purpose, goals, and objectives

Develop a WSJPA agreement Receive approvals of the WSJPA

agreement from city, community servicedistricts, and board of supervisors

Select WSJPA board members Select WSJPA agency personnel or

managing director

Develop WSJPA budget and fundingmechanism(s), as appropriate

Hire WSJPA staff, as appropriate Cause a notice of the WSJPA agreement to

be filed with the office of the CaliforniaSecretary of State as required byGovernment Code 6503.5.

In the event that the cities and county do notform the WSJPA, the County should continue to

move forward with this Plan.

Strategy 1.2 – Conduct County WasteCharacterization Studies


The WSJPA, or the County, may conduct wastecharacterization studies every five to ten years, as

appropriate, to assist in measuring success ofexisting diversion programs, and developing newdiversion programs and facilities. The previousCounty-specific waste characterization studies weconducted in 2001. The WSJPA, or the County,may conduct a new waste characterization study within the next two years to provide a baseline forthe current planning effort.

CalRecycle provides a Uniform WasteDisposal Method for jurisdictions to utilize inconducting waste characterizations. The methodis based on classifying and weighing waste from aspecified number of samples, by sector (single-family, multi-family, commercial, etc.), and byseason. For example, in order to obtain astatistically reliable characterization of residential waste, a study should at a minimum includethirty samples, distributed over at least twoseasons, with each sample at least 200 pounds.CalRecycle’s methodology also provides fieldsorting protocols, minimum health and safetystandards, and data analysis methods.

Results of a waste characterization study wouldassist the WSJPA, or the County, in identifying was

streams to be targeted for future waste diversionprograms and infrastructure development, evaluatethe effectiveness of recycling and diversion prograand focus on specific wastestreams (food waste orC&D, for example). Without a County-specific wacharacterization, the County must rely on statewidecharacterization data that may not reflect theCounty’s unique waste stream characteristics.

Costs/Benefits

The cost of a waste characterization woulddepend on size and scope (number of seasons,number of sectors, etc.).

With an accurate understanding of wastesgenerated, by type and sector, the WSJPA, or theCounty, will be able to more effectively plan,manage, and measure diversion programs. Specifi





information on wastes that are being disposed willbe valuable in refining the strategies outlined inthis vision. For example, Alameda County isdrawing on the results of their 2008 wastecharacterization study to focus efforts on reducingthe 60 percent of materials in their refuse(primarily food waste and other organics) thatcould be diverted.


The cost of a waste characterization study maypresent a barrier. The JPA can pool resources inorder to share the potential cost burden.

Implementation Timing, Strategies,

and Next Steps

The WSJPA, or the County, should conduct a waste characterization study during 2012. The WSJPA, or the County, should conduct a follow-up waste characterization study during Phase 2(2017 to 2025).

To implement a waste characterization study,the WSJPA, or the County, should contact eachCounty jurisdiction to obtain their support for

the study. Ideally, each County jurisdictionshould participate in, and contribute to, the wastecharacterization study. The WSJPA, or the County,should utilize the CalRecycle Uniform WasteDisposal Method. Because conducting a wastecharacterization can be labor intensive, the WSJPA,or the County, may choose to release a Request forProposal (RFP) for a waste characterization study.The RFP will specify the number of samples,seasons, and statistical reliability.

Strategy 1.3 – Extend Use of and Modify WERS Facility as Needed


The County currently utilizes the WERS MRF/transfer station for the majority of materialsgenerated on the West Slope. The County’s West

Slope franchises for collection services are set toend on the dates shown inTable 4-1, on the nextpage. The franchise end dates for unincorporated West Slope areas are between 2012 and 2014.The City of Placerville, Cameron ParkCommunity Services District, and El DoradoHills Community Services District recentlyextended the existing contracts for collectionservices with El Dorado Disposal Services.

The County may extend the agreement withEDDS to utilize the WERS facility until suchtime as a cost-effective alternative is available.Potential alternative are the West Slope EcoParkdescribed under Strategy 3.2, or the Modern andEconomical MRF/Transfer Station describedunder Strategy 3.10.

The County, City of Placerville, Cameron ParkCommunity Services District, and El DoradoHills Community Services District may need toutilize the existing WERS facility over the nextseveral years. These West Slope jurisdictionsshould work with the existing owner/operator toensure that the WERS facility, and an operatingcontract, are in place during this period.

Based on economic factors, the WSJPA, or theCounty, also may decide not to implement a new West Slope EcoPark (described in Section 6,Strategy 3.2). Under this scenario, the WSJPA, orthe County, may elect to work with the WERSoperator to upgrade the existing WERS facilityto handle expected County growth and possiblyincorporate features similar to those proposed forthe new West Slope EcoPark (see Strategy 3.2).2

Depending on the County’s future diversiongoals and collection service offerings, there is thepossibility of a low cost option in which theoperator redesigns the existing WERS dirty MRF

2 Due to the 10 acre-size limitation, this WERS facility would notprovide sufficient space to accommodate conversion technologiesin addition to the other features identified for the EcoPark (anEcoPark site with conversion technology spaces requires 15 acres).



4-15

Table 4-1El Dorado CountyFranchise Agreement Terms Summary(As of November 2010)

Company FranchiseEffective Date

InitialTerm

InitialFranchise

End Date

ExtendedTerm

ExtendedFranchise

End Date

OptionalExtension

Term

FinalFranchise

End DateWaste Connections of California

Amador Disposal Service June 25, 2002 10 years June 30, 2012 – – N/A g N/A g

El Dorado Disposal Services a

– El Dorado County b Oct. 1, 2004 8 yearsc Dec. 31, 2012 – – 2 yearsd Dec. 31, 2014

– City of Placervillee Mar. 8, 1994 20 years Dec. 31, 2013 – – June 30, 2023

– Cameron Park CommunityService District Feb. 2008 10 years Feb. 2018 5 years Feb. 2023 5 years Feb. 2023 or

Feb. 2028

– El Dorado Hills CommunityServices Districtf Dec. 8, 1994 21 years July 1, 2015 8 years July 2023 5 years July 2023 or

July 2028i

South Tahoe Refuse Company

American River Disposal Service Aug. 22, 2000 4 years Dec. 31, 2004 5 years Dec. 31, 2009 5 yearsg Dec. 31, 2014

Sierra Disposal Service Aug. 22, 2000 4 years Dec. 31, 2004 5 years Dec. 31, 2009 5 yearsg Dec. 31, 2014

South Tahoe Refuse Company Jan. 24, 1995 10 years Dec. 31, 2004 5 years Dec. 31, 2009 5 yearsg Dec. 31, 2014

Tahoe-Truckee SierraDisposal Company

Tahoe-Truckee Sierra Disposal h Feb., 2005 5 years Dec. 31, 2009 – – 5 yearsg Dec. 31, 2014a El Dorado Disposal Services was a subsidiary of USA Waste of California, Inc. (Waste Management, Inc.), and was acquired

by Waste Connections of California, Inc. in June 2006.b Franchise Agreement assigned from USA Waste of California, Inc. to Waste Connections of California, Inc. on June 6, 2006. c Subject to the Board of Supervisors' approval of performance and a 50 percent recycling rate, on, or before December 31, 2006,

this franchise term may be extended for up to an additional five year period. d

The County can grant up to two, one year extensions. e Under separate non-County franchise. Franchise agreement assigned from USA Waste of California, Inc. to Waste Connectionsof California, Inc. on June 5, 2006.

f Under separate non-County franchise. Franchise agreement assigned from USA Waste of California, Inc. to Waste Connectionsof California, Inc. in June 2006.

g These optional terms are at the request of the haulers. h Tahoe-Truckee Sierra Disposal has not yet formally requested a franchise extension to 2014. i El Dorado Hills CSD will extend their agreement to 2028 only if Cameron Park CSD extends their franchise agreement five years (to 2028).

If not, El Dorado Hills CSD franchise agreement will expire July 2023. Source: El Dorado County Solid Waste Services Franchise Agreements, and El Dorado County Environmental Management Department.

sort line as a clean MRF sort line so that it cansort single stream recyclables only. Under thislower cost scenario, the operator could design theline to minimize purchasing an extensive amountof high cost sorting equipment. Depending onthe size and functionality of a clean MRF sortline, this lower cost “retooling” option couldrange in capital costs from $1 to $4 million.

Cost/Benefits

Under the current status quo conditions,there are no additional new costs as the WERS isalready used by West Slope areas. By extendingthe use of the WERS facility, the WSJPA, or theCounty, will maintain solid waste processing andrecycling capabilities while they consider long-term facility infrastructure improvements.





Should the WSJPA, or the County, and WERSowner/operator agree to upgrade and modernizethe existing facility for long-term continued use,there would be costs to demolish and prepare thesite, and costs to construct a new facility on-site.High-level estimated costs to demolish the WERSbuilding and prepare the site for new facilityconstruction are $1.5 million. Costs to upgrade andmodernize the WERS facility include design costs,site improvement costs, facility building costs,fixed equipment costs, permit costs, developer fees,architect/ engineering costs, and permit costs. Low-level estimated costs to upgrade and modernize the WERS facility range from $4 to $7 million. High-level estimated costs to upgrade and modernize the

WERS facility range from $7 to and $11 million.


Upgrading the existing WERS facility hassome constraints. For example, the layout wouldcontinue to require self-haulers to use outsidetipping lanes. At 10 acres, the WERS facility alsodoes not have adequate space to include futureconversion technologies. Additionally,community use of the WERS facility during

construction would be challenging.


The WERS facility may need to remain openover the next several years, until an alternative isin place, or the existing facility is retrofitted.

Should the WSJPA, or the County, select a strategyto upgrade the WERS for long-term continued use,the WERS owner/operator would need to either:

Demolish the existing building andreconstruct a new facility in its place.This scenario requires the WERS owner/operator to temporarily redirect waste toanother facility or facilities. The WERSowner/ operator also would need toconstruct a temporary area to handle andtransfer self-haul material. Throughout

construction, this scenario likely wouldincrease operating costs, and potentiallycould lower diversion rates; or

Construct the new facility in the currentgreen waste and construction and

demolition (C&D) handling locations.This scenario allows the existing dirty MRFsort line to remain operational. The WERSowner/operator would demolish the oldbuilding after completing the new facility.The WSJPA, or the County, and WERSowner/operator will need to assess subsurfacegeology conditions, under the green wasteand C&D locations, which if problematiccould restrict this option entirely.

Strategy 1.4 – Expand Mandatory ResidentialCollection Ordinance


Selected County areas have a mandatorygarbage collection ordinance. These mandatorycollection areas currently include:

Cameron Park Community Services District(Ordinance 2007-02)

El Dorado Hills Community Services District(Ordinance 2007-01)

City of Placerville (Title 7, Chapter 1A-3, City Code) City of South Lake Tahoe (Chapter 23,

Section 20.3, City Code) All Unincorporated El Dorado County areas

in the South Lake Tahoe Basin.

Unincorporated El Dorado County areas locatedon the West Slope of the County and within theTahoe-Truckee Sierra Disposal franchise currentlydo not have a mandatory collection ordinance.

The County should implement a phasedapproach for mandatory residential collection inthose areas of the unincorporated County thatcurrently do not have mandatory collection. Thisapproach should be based on the percentage ofpotential customers by zip code that subscribe torefuse collection. When 85 percent of the potential



4-17

customers subscribe to refuse collection, then allcustomers in the zip code would be required tosubscribe to collection services.

The 85 percent potential customer ratio should

be determined by the County based on haulercustomer records, County GIS data, and propertytax records of occupied parcels and units. Once eachyear, the County and haulers should determine thepercent of customers with service, by zip code, andidentify those zip code areas that should be shiftingto mandatory collection. There should be a three-month implementation period for mandatorycollection, during which time residents will benotified of the new collection service requirements. As described under Strategies 2.6 and 2.7, allcustomers should be provided with a minimum oftwo carts (refuse and recycling), and an option fora third cart for yard waste at no additional charge.

The County should establish clear definitionsand guidelines for mandatory collection withlimited provisions for exclusions. For example,the City of Placerville’s mandatory collectioncode requires mandatory collection for garbage,recyclable materials and other solid waste materials

generated on all occupied properties within theCity of Placerville. The code identifies noticingrequirements and fees/liens for failure to comply.Placerville allows some exclusions, and requiresproperty owners to present their case for exclusionto the City Manager. Exclusions may be granted inthe case of long, narrow, or steep driveways wherethe franchise collector/hauler is unable to properlyand safely use their equipment, and granting theexclusion would not create a nuisance.

It is possible that even with an 85 percentguideline for converting an area to mandatorycollection, some County areas may never beconverted to mandatory collection due to uniquechallenges associated with the area (e.g., hard-to-serve,long driveways, remoteness, proximity to availablesmall volume transfer stations, or very high servicecosts which would require very large rate increases).

Costs/Benefits

There is a cost associated with providing refusecollection to those customers that currently do notsubscribe to service. This cost could be offset by rcharged to these customers. Benefits of mandatorycollection include: ease of solid waste collection,increased diversion, rate stability, eliminated needto self-haul waste, and reduced illegal disposal. Tstrategy will shift hauler revenue from self-haul feat the transfer station to residential service fees.


Some unincorporated County residents willnot want mandatory collection because they eitherare used to self-hauling and/or perceive that it willbe more costly. To ease the transition, uponimplementation of mandatory collection, theCounty should work with the franchisee to providetargeted education and outreach to residents as theicommunities transition to mandatory collection(e.g., written pamphlets, special call-in numbers, anexplanations for why curbside service is preferred)The County should inform residents three monthsin advance of mandatory collection, so there are nosurprises. Because the County will not implementmandatory collection in a zip code community unti85 percent of potential customers already subscribeto collection services, the number of residents that would be affected by the shift to mandatory collect would be relatively small. The County may considexclusions to mandatory collection on a case-by-cabasis, with guidelines to be included in the code.It is likely that the most remote communities in theCounty may never achieve the 85 percent target.


Table 4-2, on the next page, providespreliminary data from haulers and a County GISanalysis of the percent of customers by zip code.Customer and parcel/unit data were combined insome zip codes because the two data sets were no





Table 4-2Preliminary Comparison of Customers to Unit on Developed Residential Parcels, by Zip Code

Community Zip Code(s) Units CustomersPercent of Unitswith Customers

Cool/Greenwood 95614, 95635 2,058 1,912 93%

Georgetown 95634 1,341 1,052 78%Lotus/Garden Valley 95651, 95633 1,547 1,197 77%

Pilot Hill 95664 547 405 74%

Northwest County Subtotal 5,493 4,566 83%

Camino 95709 1,968 1,182 60%

Shingle Springs/Latrobe 95682 4,071 2,100 52%

Unincorporated Placerville/Rescuea 95667, 95672, 95613 11,537 5,869 51%

Pollock Pines 95726 4,793 2,438 51%

Diamond Springs 95619 2,068 811 39%

El Dorado/El Dorado Hills (non CSD) 95623, 95762 2,164 838 39% West Central County and Greater Placerville Subtotal 26,601 13,224 50%

Fiddletown 95629 66 8 12%

Grizzly Flats 95636 669 383 57%

Somerset/Mount Akum 95684/95656 1,615 835 52%

Mt. Akum/Grizzly Flat Subtotal 2,350 1,226 52%

Kyburz 95720 351

Echo Lake 95721 455

Twin Bridges 95735 239

El Dorado High Country/Tahoe Basin Subtotal 1,045 247 24%

Tahoma (includes Meeks Bay) 96142 1,160 757 65%

Unincorporated County Total b 36,649 20,034 55%a Includes Coloma and Kelsey customers.b Excludes unincorporated areas with existing mandatory collection.

consistent (for example, showing greater than 100%of units with service). Appendix H provides thepreliminary zip code map of developed residentialparcels in the unincorporated County (excludingEl Dorado Hills CSD, Cameron Park CSD, andthe cities of Placerville and South Lake Tahoe).

Based on this preliminary data, one (1) communityis higher than the mandatory collection trigger of85 percent (Cool/Greenwood). However, these

preliminary figures should be verified with propertytax records prior to establishing mandatory collection.

As communities reach the mandatory collectiontarget, the County and hauler(s) should provideoutreach and education to support the transition,for example:

Meeting with residents in affected communitiesto present outreach programs, discuss thenew policy, answer questions, provideimplementation details, and address concerns



4-19

Developing a County Ordinance to codifythe new requirements; amend existingordinances, as necessary. Work with theBoard of Supervisors to approve theordinance changes

Incorporating changes in franchise agreements.

Alignment of Strategy with Franchise Agreements

The franchise agreement between EDDS and theCounty expires December 31, 2012. There are twoone-year extension options, which would extend theagreement to December 31, 2014. The County’sfranchise agreements with Sierra Disposal Serviceand Tahoe-Truckee Sierra Disposal expire December31, 2014. The franchise agreement with Amador

Disposal Service (recently purchased by WasteConnections), which covers the Mt. Aukum/GrizzlyFlat region expires in 2012. The County should work with the haulers to incorporate the mandatorycollection trigger prior to the end of the franchiseagreements. For example, aligning the EDDSfranchise agreement with the mandatory collectionstrategy would require the following changes:

Revise the language of the existing franchiseagreement in Section 3.E. that states, “The

parties acknowledge that solid waste collectionservice is not mandatory throughout theFranchise Area, but is mandatory in CameronPark.” (Page 9 of 65)

Revise language in Exhibit B, Level ofService, to remove the optional containers,and require that EDDS provide at leasttwo 32, 64, or 96 gallon wheeled cartsfor refuse, recycling, and green waste.Remove any additional fees for green waste collection

Require EDDS to provide public outreachand education related to implementing themandatory collection.

In developing (or extending) franchise agreementsfor January 1, 2015 and beyond, the County shouldincorporate language to reflect the phasing in ofmandatory collection. The next franchise

agreement(s) should also reflect a requirement thathe franchisee provide at least two or three carts fall residents (refuse, recycling, green waste) (Stra2.7), fees inclusive of recycling and green wastecollection, where applicable, and a public educatioand outreach effort related to program roll-out.

Estimated Diversion and Disposal Impacts

Implementing this phased in approach tomandatory collection would represent a significanpolicy change for the County. Below, we provideestimates of the number of new customers that would participate in residential collection, byregion. These estimates are based on populationprojections, residential units as determined by GISand current customer levels in the regions. Thesepreliminary data are combined to regions, ratherthan provided by zip code. Actual phased zip codeimplementation of mandatory collection wouldlikely not affect all communities in a region, andthus the number of new customers would be lowe

Table 4-3, on the next page, provides thenumber of new customers in total, and by phase.It is estimated that there are approximately

16,607 unincorporated County households(primarily West Slope) that do not currently have waste collection services. Using an average of 2.5persons per household, this is equivalent to apopulation of 41,518, approximately 23 percentof the County’s population.

Table 4-4, on the next page, provides estimatesfor the waste generation and diversion impacts ofmandatory refuse and recycling collection, by regThis analysis is based on a relatively low disposal

figure of 0.65 tons, per person, per year used toestimate additional disposal. These estimatesassume that most self-haul would be eliminatedonce mandatory collection was implemented.These estimates also assume that some additionaldisposal that might be occurring illegally, or simpremaining on property, would be collected, thusresulting in a net increase in disposal.





Table 4-3Estimates of Additional Customers with Mandatory Collection

RegionTotal Unserved

Population Estimate

West Central/Greater

Placerville

NorthwestCounty

RemainingUnincorporated

West Central/Unincorporated Greater Placerville 13,363 13,363

Northwest County 927 – 927

Mt. Aukum/Grizzly Flat/High County/Tahoma 2,317 – 2,317

Total Number of New Customers 16,607 13,363 927 2,317

Population (@ 2.5 persons/household) 41,518 33,408 2,318 5,792

Table 4-4Estimates of Additional MSW, Recycling, and Green Waste withMandatory Collection and Expanded Cart System (tons per year)

Waste GenerationTons/

person/year

TotalTons


Placerville

NorthwestCounty


New Customer MSW Disposala 0.65 27,000 21,700 1,500 3,800

Reduced MSW Self Haulc (10,000) (8,500) (500) (1,000)

Additional MSW Disposal 17,000 13,200 1,000 2,800

Waste DiversionTons/

person/year

TotalTons


Placerville

NorthwestCounty


New Customer Recycling a 0.13 5,400 4,300 300 800

Additional Recycling from Current MSW Customersb 4,100 2,100 1,300 700Reduced Recycling Self Haulc (1,500) (1,200) (300)

Additional Recycling 8,000 5,200 1,300 1,500

Tons/person/

year

TotalTons


Placerville

NorthwestCounty


New Customer Green Wastea 0.12 5,000 4,000 300 700

Additional Green Waste from Current MSW Customersb 3,800 2,000 1,200 600

Reduced Green Waste Self Haulc (1,500) (1,200) (300)

Additional Green Waste 7,300 4,800 1,200 1,300a New customer MSW disposal, recycling, or green waste provides an estimate of additional material collected from new customer

residents in each region with mandatory collection.b Additional recycling or green waste from current MSW customers provides an estimate of additional material collected from

current MSW-only customers once these customers are provided recycling and green waste services.c Reduced self haul provides an estimate of material that is currently being self hauled that would shift to mandatory curbside collection.



4-21

Table 4-4 also provides estimates for increasedrecycling and green waste collection that couldresult from implementing the mandatory collectioncombined with three cart service (Strategy 2.7).These estimates are based on relatively high figuresof 0.13 tons of recycling per person, and 0.12 tonsof green waste per person. These estimates also takeinto account that not all current MSW customersparticipate in recycling and yard waste collection.If fully implemented across the unincorporatedCounty, the strategies could increase recycling by8,000 tons per year, and green waste collection byover 7,000 tons per year.

Strategy 1.6 – Conduct Procurement(s)

to Obtain FranchisedService Provider(s)Description and Rationale

Given the near-term expiration of some of thefranchise agreements (as identified in Table 4-1),some County jurisdictions may need to conduct abid process to obtain new refuse, recycling, andyardwaste services within two and one-half yearsfrom the writing of this Plan. County jurisdictionsmay want to integrate these collection franchises

with MRF/transfer facility operations and/or newfacility development (identified as Strategies 1.3,3.2, 3.10).

Implementation Timing

Should the County jurisdictions determine acompetitive bid process is necessary, a request forproposal (RFP) process would take approximatelytwo years.

Cost/Benefits

A competitive RFP process could costapproximately $50,000 to $150,000 per jurisdiction(including staff time and potentially outsideassistance from a consultant and/or attorney).


The outcomes of an RFP process for collectionservices are unknown. There are risks that thenew service provider may not provide the samequality or level of service, and/or resultingcollection rates could be higher (either initially orover time). These risks can be mitigated withclear expectations from County jurisdictions as torequired services and rate setting processes.

B. Objective 2 – Create Newand Enhanced CountySolid Waste ManagementPrograms and Services

Source Reduction

Strategy 2.2 – Use Greater Pay-As-You-Throw(PAYT) Pricing Programs


County jurisdictions should implement avariable fee structure (PAYT) that charges higherfees for larger amounts of waste. PAYT creates aneconomic incentive for residents to reduce theamount of waste they generate. Under PAYT,disposal rates are higher for larger containers, andlower for smaller containers. When accompaniedby education, recycling, and green waste collectioPAYT can lead to lower waste generation. In somcommunities, PAYT pricing has helped reduce theamount of waste disposed by as much as 25 to 45percent. Actual disposal reductions might besomewhat lower in El Dorado County, becausesome diversion opportunities are already in place.

However, PAYT has been shown to increasecomposting and recycling diversion by 8 to 13percent in communities with existing programsthat switched to a variable rate structure.

A key in implementing PAYT is to determinean appropriate differential between containers.If the differential is too small, there is not enough





incentive to select a smaller container. If thedifferential is too large, residents may selectthe smaller container, but dump excess wasteillegally (or in the recycling container). Anotherimportant factor is to obtain customer support forthe program prior to implementing changes. Mostprograms provide a small can option (often lessthan 32 gallons) that allows customers to select alow-cost and low-generation option. Education andoutreach to larger generators is essential in order tohelp these residents identify ways to reduce wastegeneration to the maximum extent possible.

Currently, some jurisdictions in the County with cart-based collection have modest PAYT ratestructures, while others do not.Table 4-5, on thenext page, provides a comparison of rates fromfour (4) El Dorado County jurisdictions with cart-based collections with rates from four (4) similarcounties with tiered (PAYT) rate structures. As Table 4-5 illustrates, the differentials betweenthe smallest and mid-size carts and mid-size andlarge carts are smaller in El Dorado County thanin the comparison counties. With greater ratedifferentials, there is increased incentive to adopta smaller cart size and reduce waste generation.Table 4-5 also illustrates the wide variability inrates between El Dorado County jurisdictions.

Cost/Benefits

PAYT shifts the cost burden to the larger-volumedisposers, resulting in a more equitable distributionof fees. Overall program costs will not be significantlydifferent. The economic incentive inherent in PAYTleads to significant increases in diversion, even incommunities with existing recycling programs.


Residents that maintain the larger container sizes will likely see rate increases. Education can helpalleviate concerns about rate changes and identifyoptions for residents to reduce costs.

The County will provide mailers included withcustomer bills, newsletters, as well as informationon the County and/or franchised hauler’s

website(s), well in advance of implementing aPAYT program. These materials will describe thenew program, identify changes, present availableoptions, and provide pricing scenarios. TheCounty will conduct in a public hearing prior toimplementing PAYT programs.

PAYT can sometimes result in illegal disposal when customers select a cart size that is too small.To discourage illegal dumping, the haulers willprovide vouchers for a limited number of self-haulvisits, and continue to provide spring and fall cleanup events.


County jurisdictions should work with haulersduring franchise negotiations to establish moreconsistent rates and implement PAYT pricingprograms. During the franchise negotiationprocess, the County jurisdictions should evaluatetiered PAYT rate structures of other similar

jurisdictions, as well as revenue and costprojections, to determine a reasonable ratestructure. The County jurisdictions should also

work to encourage a more uniform CountywidePAYT rate structure.

Strategy 2.3 – Expand Use of PurchasingPreference Practices


The County should expand its environmentallypreferable products purchasing program. Purchasingrecycled content and other environmentallypreferable products supports markets for recyclablematerials, “closing the loop”. Environmentallypreferable products (EPP) cover a range of productcharacteristics, including: recycled content,








When short-term costs are higher, it maypresent an immediate barrier to purchasing EPPs.The County jurisdictions should evaluateproduct prices over the long-term to reflect fullcosts. Some buyers may be skeptical about thequality of EPP products. The County jurisdictions should utilize other guidelines andcertifications that demonstrate the quality of EPPproducts, such as U.S. EPA and Caltransapproved products.


The County jurisdictions should informallyexpand their environmentally friendly productpurchases immediately, and establish a formalEPP policy by 2014. During 2013, the County jurisdictions should work with currentprocurement officers and review model EPPpolicies to develop draft ordinances. County staffshould present its draft ordinance to the Board ofSupervisors for approval.

Recycling Collection and ProcessingStrategy 2.4 – Implement Mandatory

Commercial Recycling Program


County jurisdictions should implement amandatory commercial recycling ordinance. TheInstitute for Local Government and CalRecyclehave materials available on their web pages toassist jurisdictions in developing commercialrecycling programs, including a sample ordinanceand sector-specific educational materials. Keycharacteristics of successful mandatory commercialrecycling programs include: conducting extensiveand ongoing education and technical assistance byboth haulers and agencies, implementing tieredrate structures, involving businesses in developing

the program, customizing services to businesstypes, and providing outdoor communal andinterior bins to facilitate collection.

Commercial entities generate approximately

one-half of all waste disposed in the County.Currently, El Dorado Disposal Services andSouth Tahoe Refuse Company provide voluntaryassistance to businesses and provide free recyclingservices. The extent to which businesses areparticipating is unknown, but given the experienceof other jurisdictions, there is significantopportunity for the County to increase diversionthrough commercial recycling programs. Inaddition, starting in July 2012, commercialrecycling will be mandatory in California.CalRecycle and the Air Resources Board arecurrently developing regulations for mandatorycommercial recycling as a strategy to reducegreenhouse gas emissions under AB 32 (theCalifornia Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006).

In 2009, when state legislation mandatingcommercial recycling appeared imminent, theEDSWAC discussed mandates, reviewed theCity of Sacramento’s ordinance, and considered

enforcement and education options for mandatorycommercial recycling. Placerville, the County,and South Lake Tahoe have, or are, consideringcommercial recycling mandates. Both Placervilleand South Lake Tahoe are encouraging themajority of businesses to recycle voluntarily beforefurther pursuing a mandate.

A mandatory commercial recycling program will be phased in, starting with larger businesses.The County has approximately 4,900 private

business establishments and over 150 governmentestablishments. Sectors with the largest number ofbusinesses include: other services, construction,professional and business services, and trade,transportation, and utilities. In 2009, there wereover 48,000 employees at these establishments.The County has a large share of sole proprietorsand self-employed, accounting for 39 percent of







ordinance, whichever is more stringent. CalGreenapplies to all new construction, with no minimumsquare foot threshold.

There are opportunities for the County to

increase overall diversion through C&Drecycling. While construction has declinedsignificantly over the last few years, it is likely toincrease going forward. The high 5,000 squarefoot threshold in the existing ordinance has notcaptured the vast majority of single-family homesand other small projects. In addition, renovationand remodeling projects generate materials thatcould be readily diverted.

Cost/Benefits

Increased recycling costs at construction sitesmay be offset by reduced disposal fees. Becausethe new C&D requirements are part of a broadergreen building initiative, it will be important toconsider long-term benefits such as reducedenergy and water consumption, in addition toreduced disposal.


There is likely to be resistance by buildersbecause more projects would fall under theamended ordinance. However, the State BuildingCode now requires diversion of 50 percent ofC&D waste from all new construction projects.The County should work with builders tofacilitate recycling opportunities and demonstratepotential cost savings by reducing disposaltonnage. In 2009, the County consideredamending the C&D Ordinance. At the time, theEl Dorado County Builder’s Exchange did notsupport the amendments. The County should work closely with the Exchange to gain supportfor amendments to add renovation andremodeling to the ordinance.


The County should revise the ordinance in2011, and work with builders to assist them incomplying with the new requirements. To obtaincompliance with CalGreen and increase C&Ddiversion, the County should eliminate thesquare foot threshold for new construction, andinclude renovations, as well as new construction, within the ordinance. The County shouldpresent the revised ordinance to the Board ofSupervisors for approval. The County should alsoenhance education and outreach to builders andfollow-up when reports are not received and/ordiversion targets not met.

Strategy 2.6 – Expand Use of CurbsideRecycling Programs(Targeted to Selected Areas)

Strategy 2.7 – Expand Residential CartCollection Systems(Targeted to Selected Areas)


County jurisdictions should increase

opportunities for residential recycling byproviding recycling options to all residents.These recycling options (and yard wastecollection) will be linked with refuse collection,so that as residents obtain refuse collectionservices, they are simultaneously provided withrecycling services. Residential recycling optionscurrently vary throughout the County, rangingfrom mandatory single-stream curbsidecollection, to no recycling collection.

There is an opportunity to increase the levelof cart-based services in unincorporated Countyareas, and thus the efficiency and effectiveness ofcollection services. Currently, more than half ofthe customers in the unincorporated Countysubscribe to refuse collection (see Table 4-2).Many of these customers subscribe to cart-based



4-27

service for refuse. Approximately 93 percent ofthese over 20,000 subscribers have recyclingservice. However, many of these customers donot have cart-based recycling, electing to use bluebag service. Just under 50 percent of the over20,000 subscribers also have yardwaste services.However, many of these customers elect to usetheir own containers for yardwaste service.

Under these strategies, franchised haulersshould provide all West Slope customers, thatsubscribe to service, with at least two carts: a refusecart (with size options) and a 64 or 96-gallonrecycling cart. Franchise haulers also shouldencourage customers, who require yardwasteservices, to utilize a third company-provided 96-gallon cart for yard waste at no additional charge.

With the exception of STR service areas, theCounty jurisdictions should implement a single-stream curbside cart collection (biweekly, with ayard waste option on the alternate weeks) in themore populated regions first.

Cost/Benefits

The need to increase truck routes to cover new

curbside cart collection may increase hauler costs.However, there would be significant increases indiversion with expanded recycling opportunities,particularly when implemented in combination with expanded PAYT rate-setting (see Strategy 2.2).


Increased costs due to carts and expandedtruck routes will present a barrier, however,expanding the hauler’s customer base will cover

some of the increased costs. Expanding thecustomer base would spread costs; however, rateincreases may be necessary to cover services. Lowparticipation, particularly in the most rural areas,may be a concern. This would be addressedthrough increased education and outreach.


The County jurisdictions should work withhaulers to incorporate language in new andextended franchise agreements to requirecart-based collection for all current and newcustomers (See Strategy 1.3 for a discussion offranchise agreements). The County jurisdictionsand haulers should immediately begin outreachand education on the importance of recycling,and provide carts to residents that request them. As mandatory refuse collection is implemented(see Strategy 1.4), the County jurisdictionsshould provide cart recycling to all residents.Full curbside cart recycling collection should beimplemented throughout the County by 2014 where practical and feasible.

Strategy 2.8 – Enhance Existing School,Park, and Community FacilityRecycling Programs (andimplement where necessary)


County jurisdictions should increase both

diversion and education by expanding schoolrecycling programs, where appropriate. Theprogram should include comprehensive hands-ontechnical assistance provided by the County jurisdictions and haulers, as well as educationalresources for the classroom. Schools haveopportunities to improve waste managementthrough source reduction, recycling, composting(especially as part of a school garden program),and environmentally preferred purchasing.

County jurisdictions and haulers should provideadditional outreach through schools when newprograms, such as mandatory recycling, areimplemented in a particular community.

Currently, haulers in the County providerecycling services to schools if requested, and schmay conduct field trips to hauler facilities. For





example, El Dorado Disposal has worked with theBuckeye, Rescue, and Mother Lode Union SchoolDistricts, and individual schools are saving between$500 and $1,500 per month on disposal fees.

South Lake Tahoe Refuse recently submitteda proposal to the SLT USD Superintendent ofSchools to develop a uniform recycling programin the Lake Tahoe Unified School District. Theschool district received a grant to obtain bear-proof recycling bins for each school, and STR isproviding a collection route to obtain the mixedrecyclables that are generated. Most of the materialcollected consists of paper and cardboard, as theschools collect beverage containers separately.

In addition to an increased emphasis on schoolrecycling programs, County jurisdictions shouldcontinue to work with haulers to ensure thatrecycling containers are placed (and serviced) inpublic areas such as parks, pools, beaches, andsoccer fields. Placing recycling bins at theselocations provides County residents and visitors with convenient recycling opportunities,particularly for larger sized beverage containers.

Cost/Benefits

The haulers and County jurisdictions wouldincur costs due to staff time for school visits.School districts can reduce disposal costs byreducing waste and increasing diversion. Thesecost savings can be substantial, as demonstratedby the Buckeye, Rescue, and Mother LodeUnion School Districts. Placement of recyclingcontainers in parks may result in some additionalcosts, but will also increase diversion.


County jurisdictions and hauler staff time andcosts may present a barrier. County jurisdictionsshould utilize the staff (e.g., from the commercialprogram) and apply for grants to support programand educational materials. Schools may not have

the time, resources, or interest to initiate aprogram, even if there is a potential for savings.To address this issue, County jurisdictions shouldprovide education and examples of cost savings toencourage participation.


Existing schools and parks recycling programs will continue. Outreach through schools willincrease to coincide with implementation ofstrategies outlined in this planning document.During 2012, the County jurisdictions andhaulers should meet and school district personnelto develop a consistent school recycling program.The program should be based on success ofexisting programs within the County. The County jurisdictions should ensure the haulers implementthe program within each school district.

Strategy 2.9 – Expand Diversion Programsat Public Facilities


The County should serve as a model to El

Dorado County business establishments byimplementing comprehensive diversion programs.The County currently implements an officerecycling program in Building C in Placerville,and the South Lake Tahoe office. Each workstation is provided with a blue container forrecyclables, and a smaller black container for trash.Employees were instructed (via email) on how touse the containers, and janitors keep recyclablesand trash separate. There are recycling containers

in group locations (printer room, break room),ink cartridge recycling containers, and a containerfor household batteries in Building C. Employeesare also encouraged to use double-sided printing.Composting is less established, although thereis a compost pile at the County fairgrounds, with the product used for County landscaping.



4-29

There are opportunities to expand recycling,composting, and other diversion efforts atsecondary County buildings and facilities suchas the Public Health, Social Services, and MentalHealth offices, the County jail, and Countyfairgrounds. Also these opportunities exist atother County jurisdiction buildings.

Cost/Benefits

County jurisdictions would incur some start-upand education costs; however, these will be offset byreduced disposal and increased awareness of diversionbenefits. A strong County diversion program shouldserve as an example to County businesses.


Expanding County diversion programs wouldrequire staff resources. These resourcerequirements would be offset by reduced disposalcosts, and enhanced education, countywide.


Expansion of County programs should beimplemented as a precursor to mandatorycommercial recycling. The County jurisdictionsshould adopt a comprehensive diversion program.This program should include expanded recyclingat major County jurisdictions office buildings,and education.

The County jurisdictions should conduct a waste audit of public facilities to identify wastegeneration patterns and opportunities for sourcereduction, recycling, and composting. Once

these opportunities are identified, the County jurisdictions should create a team consisting ofstaff from each of the public facilities to supportdiversion programs. The team should review the waste audit findings, identify specific programs toimplement, and conduct outreach to each facility.To highlight the benefits of diversion programs,

the County jurisdictions should publicize results otheir efforts in case studies and “how-to” guides.

Strategy 2.10 – Expand Multi-FamilyRecycling Program


The County jurisdictions should establish amandatory multi-family recycling program. Within the County, eleven percent of housingunits are multi-family, and six percent are mobilehomes. While combined multi-family and mobileunits are lower than the statewide average, theystill represent a potential diversion source for theCounty. There is currently some multi-family

recycling in the County, although services arelimited, and focus primarily on cardboard.

The City of South Lake Tahoe received a grantto design and develop a standard enclosure for arecycling dumpster or totes at multi-familycomplexes. Space within current refuse containerenclosures is a problem, and the concept is toimprove the aesthetics of the enclosures. The granprovides for installing only twelve (12) enclosurehowever, the City intends to incorporate thestandard enclosure design more broadly over time

Factors that lead to successful multi-familyprograms include: working with property manageand owners to develop the program, flexibilitybased on site characteristics, developing a sitespecific recycling collection plan, continuous andextensive education for property managers andresidents, utilizing voluntary recycling leaders toadvocate within buildings, and financial incentive

Cost/Benefits

The haulers and County jurisdictions mayincur costs due to expanded recycling routes andstaff time for education. Multi-family complexes would reduce disposal costs by reducing wasteand increasing diversion.





Ba rriers/ C ha lle ng e s (a nd Pote ntia l Solutions)

There are a number of barriers to multi-familyrecycling, including: low participation, high levelsof contamination, scavenging, apartment managerresistance, and lack of space. Determiningappropriate containers for multi-family collectioncan be problematic. There is often limited spacefor trash receptacles, and these bins are typicallyserved by rear loader vehicles. I f there is space toadd recycling carts, servicing them may require newtrucks. The County jurisdictions should addressthese barriers through ongoing and extensiveeducation, site-specific recycling plans developedin partnership between haulers and apartmentmanagers, and fines for excess contamination.

Imp le m e ntat ion Tim ing, Stra teg ie s,a nd N e xt Steps

County jurisdictions should encourage multi-family recycling in the near-term, and implementa mandatory multifamily program by 2015 (orsooner, if mandated by State legislation). County

jurisdictions should develop a mandatory multi -family recycling ordinance based on modelordinances and other jurisdictions. County staffshould present the ordinance to the Board ofSupervisors for approval. Throughout theprocess, County jurisdictions should work withhaulers and property managers to expandimplementation of multi-family recycling.

Strategy 2.13 – Enhance HomeComposting Programs

De sc ript ion a nd Rat iona le

County jurisdictions should offer education andcompost bins, through grant funding if available,as part of a comprehensive home compostingprogram. In developing the program, the County

jurisdictions should work with the University ofCalifornia Cooperative Extension MasterGardener Program in El Dorado County and the

UC D avis Master Composter. (CooperativeExtension already offers composting classes andthe UC Davis Master Composter has approachedthe County about vermiculture).

Through the University of CaliforniaCooperative Extension (UCCE), over 100County residents have become trained as aMaster Gardener. Training includes compostscience, soil health, and natural gardeningtechniques. These County residents thenvolunteer to provide training to the community.

Through this UCCE Master Gardenerprogram, the UCCE also has provided trainingto the Master Gardeners on composting. The

UCCE has designated approximately 114 M asterGardener Composting Specialists. The Countyshould leverage opportunities for this volunteergroup of Master Gardener Composting Specialiststo provide classes and other composting trainingto the community. Distributing free compostingbins to residents that participate in compost classesis another effective method of increasinghome composting.

Home composting provides a low-cost

alternative for diverting food waste and greenwaste at the source. Approximately 50 percent ofsingle-family residential waste consists of food andother organic materials, much of it compostable.Programs to expand home composting have beensuccessful in many jurisdictions.

C ost/ Be ne fits

Funding may be required for staffing. However,costs may be minimized if the County uses the

Master Gardener Composting Specialists to planand conduct training efforts. The County alsomay be able to leverage existing compostingtraining materials, used by the UCCE, forprograms in other areas. Additionally, theCounty’s Master Gardeners are building ademonstration garden behind the community



4-31

college, which may be available, at no charge tothe County, for hands-on composting classes.Over time, as the program expands, diversionbenefits could be significant.


Home composting in rural areas must addresspotential wildlife pest issues. There are techniquesthat can keep pests away from compost bins, butthis issue may make composting more challengingin some areas. Harsher winters in the mountainareas mean that composting will be seasonal insome parts of the County.

Implementation Timing, Strategies,

and Next Steps

County jurisdictions should begin working with Cooperative Extension and UC DavisMaster Composter to expand compost classesand implement a program by 2013. The County jurisdictions should first contact CooperativeExtension and the UC Davis Master Composterto identify current participation and schedulesfor composting classes. County jurisdictionsshould increase publicity and outreach for homecomposting classes. County jurisdictions shouldprovide educational materials to home compostclass participants to distribute to neighbors tohelp increase home composting participation.

Public Education

Strategy 2.17 – Advance Outreach andEducation Programs


County jurisdictions should expand diversionoutreach and education programs. Educationand outreach should be provided by both haulersand County jurisdictions, and include schoolprograms, public service announcements, web-based information, fliers and brochures,

press releases, news stories, and business awardprograms. Education and outreach (includingtechnical assistance) are critical to increasingcommercial and resident participation inrecycling, source reduction, green purchasing,and composting alternatives. The County willfocus outreach and education efforts on theresidential sector in advance of implementingnew programs and services, particularly whenhouseholds are asked to change the way theyhandle their materials or when pricing will changeCalRecycle, USEPA, StopWaste.org, the Institutefor Local Government, and others haveeducational materials that County jurisdictionscan utilize.

Cost/Benefits

Education and outreach programs shouldresult in additional costs; however, these can beminimized by drawing on existing resources,rather than developing entirely new materials.In the longer-term, increased participation ratesshould reduce per-unit program costs andenhance program effectiveness.


Cost may be the primary barrier to expandingoutreach and education. To address this barrier,County jurisdictions should ensure that educationand outreach costs are covered within the existingrate structure, and draw on existing resources foreducational materials, to the extent possible.


County jurisdictions, with haulers, shouldimmediately begin to develop an education andoutreach strategy that is aligned with roll-out ofnew program alternatives. County jurisdictionsshould enhance education programs over time toreflect current outreach needs. To the extentpossible, County jurisdictions should draw on





existing resources such as CalRecycle, US EPA,and other jurisdictions to obtain examples ofsuccessful outreach materials and approaches.

C. Objective 3 – Create Solid Waste ManagementFacility Infrastructure

Strategy 3.1 – Evaluate, Finalize, Planand Initiate FacilityInfrastructure Strategies


With the creation of a West Slope JPA, themember agencies would be in a strong position

to evaluate and implement facility infrastructureimprovements that will benefit all communitieson the West Slope. This strategy consists of aplanning effort for the JPA members to carefullyevaluate the facility strategies outlined underPhases 2 and 3, and to plan and implement thosestrategies that contribute to solid wastemanagement in the County.

Costs/Benefits

This strategy is essentially a planning effort toensure a coordinated approach to long-termfacility infrastructure needs in the County. Assuch, there are no costs. However, by poolingresources and waste streams, WSJPA memberagencies will obtain better value for theirinfrastructure investments.


The potential for benefits across all jurisdictionsthat result from a coordinated approach toinfrastructure development should minimize thelikelihood of conflicts in planning infrastructureneeds. The overall benefits to WSJPA memberagencies should outweigh competing interests thatmay make the planning process more difficult.


Upon the creation of a West Slope JPA,potentially by December 2012, the WSJPAmembers should evaluate the facility infrastructurestrategies outlined in this plan. The WSJPA shouldbegin implementation of selected infrastructurestrategies during Phase 1, as appropriate.

During this evaluation, WSJPA membersshould consider the background informationprovided in this Plan, results of the WasteCharacterization Study, current economic andpopulation data and projections, and otherrelevant information to prioritize infrastructureimprovements for the West Slope.

In the event that the cities and county do notform the WSJPA, the County should move forward with this interim infrastructure strategy planning.

Strategy 3.5 – Develop Small VolumeRural Transfer Facilities andStrategically Placed DebrisBoxes on the West Slope


The WSJPA, County and/or Franchisees maydevelop rural transfer/buy-back facilities and/orstrategically placed debris boxes on the West Slope.Potential locations include the north west side ofthe County (Georgetown/Divide area) and thesouth west side of the County (Somerset/Mt. Aukum). Small transfer stations could include:

1. Roll-off bins for refuse (periodic freecustomer usage as part of subscription service)

2. Yard waste collection areas (20 yard bins)3. Recycling buy-back centers4. White goods collection5. E-waste collection6. An antifreeze, battery, oil, and paint

collection facility (ABOP).



4-33

The transfer station facilities should handle upto 15 tons per day, considered the “notificationtier” for permitting purposes. The intent of thesefacilities is to minimize illegal dumping andafford residents the opportunity to avoid longdistance travel for self hauling. Appendix I provides more detail related to these smallvolume transfer stations.

Strategically located debris boxes, at fire stations,for example, would be a simpler version of thisstrategy. These locations could include a refuse bin,a yard waste bin, and one or more recyclable binsplaced in an easily accessible public location.

Costs/Benefits

Construction and equipment costs for thesenew small volume facilities are expected to beminimal. The requirements include a small officetrailer, debris boxes, bins, and sufficient space toallow modest self-haul traffic levels. The costs areessentially associated with owning/ leasing theland. By providing convenient disposal andrecycling to rural residents, small volume transferstations may reduce illegal disposal in the County.

Costs for placing debris boxes would be veryminimal, consisting primarily of the cost to thehauler to pick up the boxes when full. Availabilityof debris boxes would provide a convenient and lowcost alternative to illegal disposal in the County.


Some residents may not want a transferstation/ buy-back facility near housing orcommercial establishments (i.e., the NIMBY

concern). The WSJPA, or the County, should beable to mitigate these concerns with the smallvolume nature of these facilities and rurallocation. There is potential for vandalism atdebris box locations. Siting the debris boxes atlocations such as fire stations or commercialbusinesses would help reduce vandalism.

Table 4-6Small Volume Rural Drop-Off Facility Timeline

Description Timing

Environmental review – Initial StudyPreparation and Completion of NegativeDeclaration or Categorical Exemption

18 months

Development and regulatory permitting,and project design 18 months

Financing and construction (includes siteimprovements, equipment, small office) 12 months

Tentative operational date Within 4 years


If implemented, the WSJPA, or the County,should develop the two small volume transfer/buy-back facilities during Phase 1. Timing fordevelopment of these facilities is provided inTable 4-6, above. Locating debris boxes at firestations could be done almost immediately, andpursued as an interim measure.

To implement debris boxes, the WSJPA, or theCounty, should contact fire stations that couldserve as potential locations for the debris boxes,and determine whether debris box placement would be feasible. The WSJPA, or the County,should contact the hauler and discuss placementof such boxes, and cost of providing the service.

To implement the small transfer stations, the WSJPA, or the County, should first conduct anenvironmental review. This process will includepublic hearings on transfer station sites. Once oneor more sites have been identified, the WSJPA,or the County, should continue with the

regulatory permitting and project design.

Strategy 3.9 – Develop West Slope C&DProcessing Facility


The WSJPA, or the County, should develop anew West Slope Construction and Demolition





(C&D) facility. A significant portion of thedivertible material in the County’s waste stream(on a weight basis) is C&D. This largecomponent of the waste stream merits WSJPA orCounty consideration to ensure that this portionof the waste stream is managed properly. Further,a new dedicated C&D facility aligns with greaterenforcement of the County’s C&D ordinance(Strategy 2.5).

Ideally, the C&D facility should be located on the West Slope where most new County developmentis expected. This proximity to new development would facilitate easy disposal of large quantities ofC&D materials which generators otherwise wouldtransport to the WERS in Placerville.

The WERS, in its current configuration, is notideally set up to manage and process large quantitiesof C&D materials. Currently, the WERS facilitylimitation is not problematic because Countygrowth has significantly declined and constructionactivity is virtually non-existent. However, theCounty eventually may need a C&D facility toadequately accommodate future plannedconstruction activity.

The WSJPA or the County should make everyeffort to utilize a public-private partnership forthis C&D facility, whereby the WSJPA or theCounty, would plan to own the facility andcontract with a private operator. This relationshipshould allow the County to control and measurediversion management activities from thisimportant segment of the waste stream.

The C&D facility should include a relativelysimple 10 to 12 station elevated sort line. TheC&D facility should either use a positive sort(removing C&D materials into bunkers below)or a negative sort (removing items for disposalinto bunkers below). The C&D facility shouldsort the following materials for recycling:

Asphalt Cardboard

Concrete Drywall Metal Paper

Rigid plastics Porcelain Shingles Tile Wood (untreated, unpainted).

The C&D facility also should include woodchippers and grinders. The C&D facilityalso could include a reuse area for salvaged

building materials.

Costs/Benefits

Depending on the land costs, and the typeof building used (if any), facility constructioncosts could range between $2 and $4 million.Operating costs could range from $200,000 to$350,000 per year.

A significant portion of West Slope C&Dmaterial comes from self-haul customers whocurrently bring their C&D material to the WERS.The new C&D sort line should direct some of theself-haul traffic away from the WERS, thus easingtraffic cueing problems at the WERS. The newC&D facility should provide adequate space toaccommodate incoming and outgoing traffic.


Some residents may not want a new facilitylocated next to their property, the not-in-mybackyard (NIMBY) concern. The WSJPA, or theCounty, should proceed through a CEQAprocess before permitting and constructing a West Slope C&D facility.



4-35

Implementation Timing, Strategies, andNext Steps

Assuming the WSJPA, or the County, canobtain applicable facility permits and completeenvironmental documentation requirements, the WSJPA, or the County, should implement theC&D sort line toward the end of the Phase 1timeframe, likely by 2015. The WSJPA, or theCounty, would thus be positioned to handle thepossibility of increases in C&D activity occurringin the intermediate-term planning horizon.

D. Objective 4 – Provide AlternativeSources of Funding for New

Facilities, Programs, and ServicesStrategy 4.1 – Revise Rate System to Fund

New Facilities and Programs


County jurisdictions may need to increase theirresidential and commercial collection rates to fundthe new programs and facilities identified in thisPlan. Table 4-7, on the next page, identifies theestimated costs for proposed strategies.

Costs/Benefits

This Plan is not without cost impacts. However,the new programs and services identified in thisPlan provide the County a roadmap to manage its waste management needs for the next twenty-plusyears and to meet expected future diversionrequirements. These new programs and servicesmeet Plan goals and allow County jurisdictions tominimize externalities, optimize its facilities andresources, and minimize long-term wastemanagement infrastructure risks.


County jurisdictions have historically focusedon minimizing rate increases to its residentsand businesses. However, in order to meet the

future waste management needs, the County jurisdictions recognize that rate increases maybe unavoidable. County jurisdictions shouldconsider phasing-in rate increases, in advance ofactual construction of new facilities, to pre-fundfacility construction. To mitigate rate impacts, where possible County jurisdictions also shouldamortize (rate fund) facility costs (e.g., financingcosts) over the useful life of the facility.


As the facility enhancements are consideredlonger-term strategies, and they carry the bulk ofthe new costs, following construction of these newfacilities (primarily in later Phases), West Slopecustomers could see a rate increase based on thenew operating costs of these facilities. For theremainder of the programmatic changes, whichgenerally have lesser cost impacts, all Countyratepayers may see some smaller, more incrementrate changes throughout the near-term, and longerterm, periods. The County, likely through the WSJPA and work with South Lake Tahoe, asappropriate, should carefully evaluate potential

rate impacts of Plan alternatives.

E. Objective 5 –Determine andImplement AppropriatePerformance Tracking

Strategy 5.1 – Identify AppropriatePerformance Metric forEach Selected Strategy


To measure performance of this Plan, County jurisdictions should develop a performance metricfor each strategy implemented. Each performancemetric should be quantifiable and measurable. Without a way to measure the outcome of astrategy, County jurisdictions would not be ableto justify program or service investments to its





Table 4-7Estimated New Capital and Operating Costs and Diversion Potential Page 1 of 3

Strategy EstimatedOne-Time Costs g

Estimated AnnualRecurring Costs g

PotentialIncremental New

Tons Diverted

PercentDiversiona

Tons Divertedper $1000

Dollars Spentper Year b

1.1 Create West Slope JPA $10,000 to $50,000 $0 to $150,000 Enhances diversionin other strategies N/A N/A

1.2 Conduct County WasteCharacterization Studies

$150,000(assume 3 studies

over planning period)$0 Enhances diversion

in other strategies N/A N/A

1.3 Extend Use of and Modify WERS as Needed $1 to $4 millionc $0 to $250,000 2,500 to 5,000 0.9% 10

1.4 Expand MandatoryResidential CollectionOrdinancef

$35,000 to $50,000(education,

staff time, exclusions)$150,000 to $300,000 d

5,000 to 8,000recyclables, 3,500 to7,000 green wastee

3.1% 36

1.5 Create a Regional JPA $10,000 to $50,000 $0 Enhances diversionin other strategies N/A N/A

2.1 Implement New WasteReduction Actions Minimal $15,000 to $30,000(3 to 5 large audits) 100 to 500 0.1% 13

2.2 Use Greater Pay-As- You-Throw (PAYT)Pricing Programs

$25,000 to $40,000for a study Minimal 500 to 1,000 0.2% 231

2.3 Expand Use of PurchasingPreference Practices

$5,000 to $7,500(develop policy)

$2,000h (to update policies) 100 to 200 0.0% 57

2.4 Implement MandatoryCommercial RecyclingProgramf

$35,000 to $50,000(education, staff time) $250,000 to $500,000 2,000 to 3,500 0.6% 7

2.5 Enhance and EnforceC&D Ordinance $5,000 to $10,000 $5,000 to $10,000 500 (in conjunction

with Strategy 3.9) 0.1% 61

2.6 Expand Use of CurbsideRecycling Programsf $35,000 to $50,000(education, staff time) $250,000 to $750,000 2,500 to 4,000recyclables, 2,000 to

3,500 green waste1.6% 13

2.7 Expand ResidentialCart Systemf Minimal Combined with 2.6 Combined with 2.6 N/A N/A

2.8 Enhance Existing School,Park, and CommunityFacility RecyclingPrograms (and implement

where necessary)

$25,000 to $50,000(education, staff time) $5,000 to $10,000 50 to 200 0.0% 11

2.9 Expand DiversionPrograms atPublic Facilities

$5,000 to $10,000(staff time) $5,000 Minor N/A N/A

2.10 Expand Multi-FamilyRecycling Programf $15,000 to $20,000(education, staff time) $75,000 to $200,000 500 to 1,500 0.2% 5a Based on midpoint of estimated incremental new tons diverted in 2020.b Based on midpoint estimates of one-time costs, recurring costs, and tons diverted. Assumes 10-year amortization of one-time costs.c Represents lower cost retooling option.d Assumes most costs associated with new routes, labor, trucks, carts, and disposal covered by rates charged to new customers.e Assumes majority of County areas have mandatory collection.f Subject to franchise agreement amendment and/or negotiation with franchise hauler(s).g Does not include the impact of in-kind contributions from the County, City, or CSDs. In-kind contributions could reduce those costs.h There may be additional costs beyond the amount stated. These higher costs would be reflected in high priced products.



4-37

Ta ble 4-7Est im a ted Ne w Ca pi ta l and O pe ra t ing C osts and Diversion Potent ia l (co ntinued) Pag e 2 of 3

StrategyEstimated

O ne- Tim e C ostsg Estimated AnnualRe cu rring C osts g

Potentia lInc reme n ta l New

Tons Diverted

PercentDiversiona

Tons Divepe r $100

Dollars Sppe r Yea b

2.11 Expand Types ofRecyclables CollectedCurbside

$5,000 to $10,000(for education) $10,000 to $20,000 Minor N/A N/A

2.12 Develop CommercialFood Waste CollectionProgram f


2.13 Enhance HomeComposting Programs $25,000 to $50,000

$10,000 to $20,000(training classesand education)

200 to 500 0.1% 19

2.14 Prepare for PossibleElimination ofResidential Yard WasteBurning on West Slope

$10,000 to $25,000 $5,000 to $10,000 N/A N/A N/A

2.15 Develop CommunityComposting Programs

$15,000 to $20,000(education, staff time) $5,000 to $10,000 Minor N/A N/A

2.16 Develop ResidentialFood Waste CollectionProgram f


2.17 Advance Outreach andEducation Programs N/A $15,000 to $20,000

(education, staff time)Enhances diversionin other strategies N/A N/A

3.1 Evaluate and Plan FacilityInfrastructure Strategies $15,000 $0 Enhances diversion

in other strategies N/A N/A

3.2 Develop a West SlopeEcoPark $24 to $39 million $500,000 to $1,000,000 20,000 to 40,000 7% 8

3.3 Re-Open UnionMine Landfill See Table 6

3.4 Develop El DoradoCounty CompostingFacility $2 to $4 million $200,000 to $300,000

5,000 to 10,000(green waste materialcollected curbside iscurrently diverted

and used for alternativedaily cover)

1.7% 14

3.5 Develop Small VolumeRural Transfer StationFacilities, and StrategicallyPlaced Debris Boxes onthe West Slope

$750,000 to$1.5 million $150,000 to $300,000

Minor additionaldiversion, but enhances

convenience andreduces illegal dumping

N/A N/A

3.6 Plan for ConversionTechnologies, ifEconomically andOperationally Feasible

$25,000 Unknown,if applicable Unknown N/A N/A

3.7 Enhance CountyComposting Facility $1 to $3 million $100,000 to $150,000 Contributes to strategies

2.12 and 2.16 N/A N/A

a Based on midpoint of estimated incremental new tons diverted in 2020.b Based on midpoint estimates of one-time costs, recurring costs, and tons diverted.Assumes 10-year amortization of one-time costs.

f Subject to franchise agreement amendment and/or negotiation with franchise hauler(s).g Does not include the impact of in-kind contributions from the County, City, or CSDs. In-kind contributions could reduce those costs.





Tab le 4-7Est im a ted Ne w Ca pi ta l and Op erat ing C osts and Diversion Potent ia l (continued) Pag e 3 of 3

StrategyEstimated

One -Time C ostsg Estimated AnnualRe c urring C osts g

Potentia lInc rem en ta l Ne w

Tons Diverted

PercentDiversiona

Tons Dive rtedpe r $1000

Dollars Spe ntpe r Yea rb

3.8 Renovate South LakeTahoe MRF and TransferStation to Accept SingleStream Recyclables

$2 to $5 million Minimal change toMRF operating costs 1,500 to 2,500 0.5% 6

3.9 Develop West SlopeC& D Processing Facility

$2 to $4 million(depending on

land costs)$200,000 to $350,000 8,000 to 12,000 2% 17

3.10 Develop Modernand EconomicalMRF/Transfer Stationon the West Slope f

$10 to $15 million $200,000 to $400,000 15,000 to 25,000 5% 13

Low End Total(does not include Strategy 3.2

EcoPark, Strategy 3.3 UnionMine Landfill, and Strategy3.10 Modern MRF/T/S)

$2.6 to $6.2 millionc

44,450 to 68,900 13.1%

Low End Total Diversionby 2020(without Strategies 3.2,3.3, and 3.10)

10% to16%

High End Total(includes Strategy 3.2EcoPark, does not includeStrategies 3.3 and 3.10)

$5.5 to $11.1 million 64,450 to 108,900 20%

High End Total Diversionby 2020(with Strategy 3.2, withoutStrategies 3.3 and 3.10)

15% to25%

a Based on midpoint of estimated incremental new tons diverted in 2020.b Based on midpoint estimates of one-time costs, recurring costs, and tons diverted.Assumes 10-year amortization of one-time costs.

c Includes the sum of estimated recurring costs and one-time costs amortized over 10 years.f Subject to franchise agreement amendment and/or negotiation with franchise hauler(s).g Does not include the impact of in-kind contributions from the County, City, or CSDs. In-kind contributions could reduce those costs.

stakeholders and policy makers. Performance

metrics allow the County jurisdictions to assessongoing progress of Plan strategies so the County

jurisdictions can make needed adjustments ormodifications to the strategies.

For each new program that has an impact ondiversion, County jurisdictions should attempt toisolate the incremental diversion resulting fromthat program. The performance metric for these

diversion-related programs would be the quantity

of material diverted by the program (either inpounds per day or tons).

Examples of selected performance metrics include: Diversion by program

(tons, pounds per day) Diversion, Countywide

(tons, pounds per day)










Section 5

Phase 2: Intermediate-Term Strategies



5. Phase 2:

Intermediate-Term StrategiesThis section describes the intermediate-term strategies for the County’s future solid

waste management system.Figure 5-1, on page 5-2, summarizes a total ten (10)strategies to implement in the intermediate-term. The intermediate-term is defined asthe period from 2017 through 2025. The specific strategies to be implemented willinclude continuation of Phase 1 strategies, and implementation of several new strategieDuring Phase 2 the County jurisdictions should continue to expand programs, developinfrastructure, and seek new funding sources.

The ten Phase 2 strategies cover four of the five planning objectives: Objective 2 – Create New and Enhanced County Solid Waste Management

Programs and Services Strategy 2.1 – Implement New Waste Reduction Actions Strategy 2.11 – Expand Types of Recyclables Collected Curbside Strategy 2.12 – Develop Commercial Food Waste Collection Program Strategy 2.15 – Develop Community Composting Programs Strategy 2.16 – Develop Residential Food Waste Collection Program Strategy 2.18 – Reduce Emissions from Collection Fleets

Objective 3 – Create Solid Waste Management Facility Infrastructure Strategy 3.4 – Develop El Dorado County Composting Facility

Strategy 3.10 – Develop Modern and Economical MRF/Transfer Stationon the West Slope

Objective 4 – Provide Alternative Sources of Funding for New Facilities,Programs, and Services

Strategy 4.5 – Create New Funding Sources and Rate Mitigation Strategies Objective 5 – Determine and Implement Appropriate Performance Tracking

Strategy 5.2 – Summarize, Report and Evaluate Metric Data.

The remainder of this section describes each of the ten strategies. The strategies areorganized by objective. The following is provided for each strategy:

A description of the strategy and rationale for the strategy Implementation timing for the strategy Preliminary high-level costs and benefits for the strategy Barriers/challenges (and potential solutions) for the strategy.

The right-most columns of Figure 5-1 show whether the strategy is designed to movthe County toward a 75 percent diversion rate, or whether the strategy is currently aState-mandated requirement.



5. Phase 2: Intermediate Term Strategies


Figure 5-1Phase 2 Strategies

Objectives and StrategiesEast

SlopeWestSlope

PageNumber



Objective 2 – Create New and Enhanced County Solid Waste Management Programs and Services

Source ReductionStrategy 2.1 – Implement New Waste Reduction Actions X X 5-2 X


Strategy 2.11 – Expand Types of RecyclablesCollected Curbside X X 5-3 X


Strategy 2.12 – Develop Commercial Food WasteCollection Program X X 5-4 X

Strategy 2.15 – Develop Community Composting Programs X X 5-5 XStrategy 2.16 – Develop Residential Food Waste

Collection Program X X 5-6 X

Evolve Collection Trucks and Equipment to Improve Carbon Emissions

Strategy 2.18 – Reduce Emissions from Collection Fleets X X 5-7

Objective 3 – Create Solid Waste Management Facili ty Infrastructure

Strategy 3.4 – Develop El Dorado CountyComposting Facility X X 5-8 X

Strategy 3.10 – Develop Modern and EconomicalMRF/Transfer Station on the West Slope X 5-9 X


Strategy 4.5 – Create New Funding Sources andRate Mitigation Strategies X X 5-10


Strategy 5.2 – Summarize, Report and Evaluate Metric Data X X 5-11

A. Objective 2 – Create Newand Enhanced CountySolid Waste ManagementPrograms and Services

Source Reduction

Strategy 2.1 – Implement New WasteReduction Actions


As part of the commercial recycling programand enhanced education and outreach, the

County jurisdictions (with haulers) shouldimplement a business waste audit program.This program would include on-site visits tobusinesses, starting with the largest businesses,to identify source reduction, recycling, and

green purchasing opportunities, and to assist inimplementing programs. This one-on-onecontact would also be an important componentof a commercial recycling program, and couldlead to significant waste reduction opportunities.

A waste audit provides generators with ananalysis of their waste stream, and can identify



5-3

what types of recyclable materials and waste abusiness generates, how much can be recycled,and opportunities to reduce waste at the source. Audits help businesses identify a customized setof cost-effective waste reduction strategies,determine potential for cost savings, and identifymetrics to help businesses track success over time.Several organizations, including: CalRecycle,USEPA WasteWi$e, StopWaste.org, and theInstitute for Local Government have business-sector specific materials that identify waste reduction opportunities.

County jurisdictions should also continue to work with thrift stores (Snowline Hospice,Goodwill) to encourage residents and businessesto donate, rather than dispose, usable items.Snowline Hospice has been a major contributorto waste diversion in the County.


County jurisdictions should beginimplementing a waste audit program in 2017,as a follow-up to the mandatory commercialrecycling ordinance (see Strategy 2.4).1

Cost/Benefits

County jurisdictions and haulers should incurcosts to staff the audit program. There aresignificant potential diversion benefits, which canbe quantified in follow-up efforts withparticipating businesses.


Costs and staffing may present barriers. The

County jurisdictions may apply for grants tosupport the effort, and/or cover the costs withinrefuse rates.

1 The WSJPA, or the County, could implement this strategysooner if resources are available.


Strategy 2.11 – Expand Types of RecyclablesCollected Curbside


County jurisdictions should expand curbsiderecycling to certain hazardous and electronic wastes. Currently, the South Tahoe RefuseHousehold Hazardous Waste Facility acceptshazardous waste from residents on Tuesdaysand Saturdays. Residents may also place batteriesand small electronics in a separate clear bag intheir refuse containers, for sorting at the MRF.El Dorado Disposal’s MRF near Placervilleaccepts household hazardous waste from residentson Fridays and Saturdays. The El Dorado HillsFire Station accepts household hazardous wastefrom residents on the first and third Saturdayof each month. Providing convenient curbsidecollection of certain hazardous materials canreduce illegal disposal.

County jurisdictions should add or continuecurbside collection for three common householdhazardous materials. Household batteries should

be placed in a designated container, and puteither into, or on top of, the recycling container.Currently, in most parts of the County, residentscan call for used oil collection. Used motor oilshould be placed in a special container, and setnext to the recycling bin for collection. Thehaulers should provide homeowners with acontainer for used oil, free of charge. County jurisdictions should provide e-waste collectionat the curb on special collection days, givingresidents a convenient disposal option for oldtelevisions, computers, printers, and similarequipment. County jurisdictions should continueto provide household hazardous waste collectionat the MRF, and community clean up days tocollect large items.

South Lake Tahoe Refuse and El DoradoDisposal offer residential curbside collection for





the typical range of paper, metals, glass, and plastic. While there may be some limited opportunities toadd new materials as markets develop, the existingprograms are fairly comprehensive, in terms oftraditional recyclables.


County jurisdictions should add selectedmaterials to curbside collection, with exacttiming to be determined based on such factors asavailability of markets and diversion potential.

Cost/Benefits

Collecting these materials at the curb mayresult in additional collection costs, as well assorting and processing costs at the MRF. Actualcosts would depend in part on participation rates.Costs should be balanced against the benefit ofreducing toxic materials going to landfills, andthus reducing the potential for costly hazardous waste cleanup in the future.


Additional costs of collecting and handling

these materials may be a barrier.


Strategy 2.12 – Develop Commercial Food Waste Collection Program


County jurisdictions should develop acommercial food waste collection program as anextension of the mandatory commercial recyclingordinance. Businesses that generate a significantvolume of food waste should be provided withcontainers to separate compostable food waste,and this material should be collected with (butkept separate from) other recyclables and/or waste.

On average, approximately 20 percent of wastefrom commercial businesses is food waste. In El

Dorado County, this means over 16,000 tons offood waste is disposed each year. Much of this waste, particularly from restaurants and grocerystores, could be diverted and composted.

Starting in January 2010, South Tahoe RefuseCompany piloted a food waste collection withthree businesses in South Lake Tahoe (not allthree businesses were in El Dorado County). STRprovided three yard bins to each pilot customer,and once a week collected the material and droveto a food waste composting facility in CarsonCity, Nevada. The pilot collected 46 tons of food waste in the first year, with just three participants.STR will be expanding the program, but at thispoint will maintain only one truckload per week(up to ten customers). Because the tipping fee atthe compost facility is currently higher than thelandfill tipping fee, the program is relativelyexpensive. Participants are focusing on broaderenvironmental benefits, not simply costs.

Under an expanded program, Countybusinesses (e.g., grocery stores, restaurants, andgarden centers) shall place organics inside aseparate cart or bin. Where needed, the haulers

shall provide businesses with carts to hold foodscraps inside the establishment until they areplaced in the outside bin. Food wastes acceptedin this stream would include:

Coffee grounds Dairy products Fruit and vegetables Food-soiled paper (napkins, towels,

plates, tissue, cups, take-out containers)

Food products (bones, pasta, bread,and dough) Paperboard milk cartons Plants Restaurant grease Waxed cardboard Wood scraps.



5-5


Commercial food waste collection shouldcontinue to be explored in South Lake Tahoe in2011, and implemented in other portions of the

County during Phase 2, if not sooner.

Costs and Benefits

A preliminary study by CalRecycle ofcommercial recycling costs estimates programcosts at approximately $50 per ton, with costspotentially higher in rural areas. Commercialfood waste collection costs may be offset byreduced disposal and landfill fees. The economicsof food waste composting will improve as more

companies participate. In addition, if the County jurisdictions develop a facility that can acceptfood waste, tipping fees would likely besubstantially lower than the Carson City facility.


Businesses may be resistant to mandatorycollection. County jurisdictions should emphasizeenvironmental benefits and the potential for costsavings to businesses by reducing waste disposal.

Implementing collection in rural areas may becostly. Thus, to the extent possible, County jurisdictions and haulers should coordinatecommercial food waste collection along efficientroutes to reduce costs.

Strategy 2.15 – Develop CommunityComposting Programs


County jurisdictions should promote andsupport community composting programs.Community composting programs cover a rangeof local, neighborhood-based, compostingprograms. Each location that develops communitycomposting should customize the program to fittheir needs. These programs are typically basedaround a central compost location where neighbors

can bring green and food waste for small-scalecomposting. Waste may also be collected fromhomes of seniors or others with mobility issues.

Community composting is a step up in scale

from backyard composting, but much smallerthan a commercial scale facility. Residents may beprovided with a container to bring food waste tothe community site, and also encouraged to bringgreen waste to the site. Community compostinglocations may include a grinder to create fineparticles conducive to composting quickly.Programs typically rely on volunteers to managecompost production. The completed compostproduct should be utilized in community greenspaces, and/or provided to participants. Potentiallocations for community composting include, butare not limited to: community centers, Countyfacilities, senior centers, community gardens, smafarms, and schools. The community compostingprogram should be promoted and organized incooperation with the El Dorado CountyCooperative Extension, building on the homecomposting program (Strategy 2.13).


County jurisdictions, with CooperativeExtension, should shift their focus from homecomposting to community composting as the“market” for home composting becomes saturatedby 2020 at the latest. Community composting isconsidered an intermediate-term strategy; howeveCounty jurisdictions should support opportunitiesto establish community composting programs thatoccur during the first six years of the Plan.

Costs/Benefits

Community composting programs should buildon the home composting program, includingvolunteer support, and thus not require significantnew funding. These neighborhood compostingprograms provide diversion, education, andcommunity-building benefits.






Community composting programs relyheavily on voluntary support and communityenthusiasm. The County’s role should be to

promote and encourage these programs. Pestand odor concerns may dampen enthusiasmfor community composting in some locations.There are techniques that can keep pests awayfrom compost bins, but this issue may makecommunity composting more challenging insome areas.

Strategy 2.16 – Develop Residential Food Waste Collection Program


Food waste represents a large portion of theCounty’s waste stream. In 2010, the Countyestimates 31,658 tons, or 17.3 percent of theCounty’s waste stream was food. County jurisdictions currently have no programs withfranchised waste haulers for residential food wastecollection, either on the West Slope or East Slope.

In this strategy, County residents would placefood waste inside the yard waste cart, for acombined organics collection. The haulersshould provide residents with a free seal-tightbin to hold food scraps until they are placed inthe organics bin. Food wastes accepted in thisstream should include:

Coffee grounds Dairy products Fruit and vegetables Food-soiled paper (napkins, towels,

plates, tissue, cups, take-out containers) Food products (bones, pasta, bread,

and dough) Paperboard milk cartons Waxed cardboard.

Over the long-term, to advance its diversion,County jurisdictions should develop a collectionprogram to capture residential food waste from its waste stream. In conjunction with the WesternEl Dorado County Composting Facility upgrade(described in Strategy 3.7), the WSJPA, or theCounty, should use this food waste in combination with collected greenwaste for a more robustcomposting material.


The County should implement a residentialfood waste collection program during the earlyyears of Phase 2.

Costs/Benefits

The costs to add a residential food wasteprogram could be approximately $0.50 to $1.00per residential customer, per month. The Countycan realize additional diversion of approximately3 to 5 percentage points of diversion from aresidential food waste program. By compostingthe food waste, the County jurisdictions can“close-the-loop” for a large portion of the waste

stream that currently goes to the landfill.Removing food waste (with its high watercontent), from the disposal stream, should reducelandfill leachate and methane gas generationlevels. Some of the food waste program costs would be offset by disposal cost reductions.


Some residents will not want to separate food waste. Managing food waste necessitates some

behavior change requirements for residents.County jurisdictions should perform outreach andeducation far in advance of implementing a food waste program. County jurisdictions should work with the haulers to pilot the program first. County jurisdictions should consider phasing the programfor the more urban areas of the County first, andthe more rural and remote areas second.



5-7

Evolve Collection Trucksand Equipment to ImproveCarbon Emissions

Strategy 2.18 – Reduce Emissions fromCollection Fleets


County jurisdictions should require that allcollection vehicles used by its franchise haulers beCalifornia Air Resources Board (ARB) compliant. ARB compliance requires refuse collection trucks tomeet performance requirements between 2011 and2023. By January 1, 2023, all trucks must have ayear 2010 model year engine or equivalent. Truckscan be retrofitted to meet this requirement.

As the collection vehicles used by franchisedhaulers are added or replaced within a fleet between2011 and 2020, subject to the availability and cost-effectiveness of alternative fuels, County jurisdictionsshould require that the fleet use alternative fueledtrucks and vehicles. Alternative fuels may include:

Biodiesel (B5 and B20 forms)2 Compressed natural gas (CNG)3 Liquefied natural gas (LNG).

There is a trend to move away from diesel-powered refuse collection trucks. Recent studiessuggest that the lifecycle costs of natural gas refusetrucks are on par economically with traditionaldiesel powered trucks. A California Natural GasVehicle Coalition report found natural gas fueledtrucks “highly competitive” with diesel trucks.Projections for diesel truck costs are more highlyvariable than natural gas truck costs. Further,

natural gas trucks emit less particulate matter (i.e.,nitrogen-oxide emissions) and are significantlyquieter than diesel trucks. A retail cost comparisonbetween 2004 and 2009 also showed diesel fuel wasapproximately $1 per gallon more than compressed

2 Represents 5 percent and 20 percent biodiesel respectively.3 Generally costs 15 to 40 percent less than diesel fuel.

natural gas (CNG) during this six year period. While it may not make sense in the near-termfor County jurisdictions to covert entire refusecollection fleets to alternative fueled ones, overthe long-term, County jurisdictions may find thatconversion to alternative fueled vehicles providescompelling economic and environmental benefits.


Over the intermediate-term, County jurisdictionsshould assess whether to require franchised haulers either use alternative fueled trucks (in the case of anew franchise), or phase-in alternative fueled trucks with normal vehicle replacement schedules (in thecase of an existing or extended franchise).

Costs/Benefits

The costs of alternative fueled collection trucksrange from $250,000 to $300,000 per truck.For alternative-fueled trucks there will be anincremental additional purchase cost of 10 to 15percent above the normal replacement cost of atruck. Also, alternative fueled vehicles are generamore costly to operate and maintain (10 to 15

percent higher O&M costs). Purchasing alternativfuel trucks would assist the County jurisdictions inreducing greenhouse gas emissions.


The performance of alternative fueled trucks isnot completely proven relative to traditional diesetrucks (e.g., maintenance, breakdowns, operationsin cold weather conditions). In some recent studiethe costs of alternative fueled trucks are shown to

be lower over the life of the truck based on lowerfuel costs (under the assumption that the fuelsources are available and fuel prices can benegotiated to be fixed over longer periods of timeCounty jurisdictions should continually explorefactors affecting alternative fueled truck performaand cost effectiveness to determine if an alternativfueled vehicle strategy continues to be a good one





Table 5-1West El Dorado CountyComposting Facility Specifications

Description Initial Design Specification

Permitted capacity 20,000 tons/year

Throughput 16,000 tons/year Acreage 5 to 7 acres

Equipmentrequirements

Horizontal grinder,rubber-tired loader, trommel

screener, scarab windrow turner

B. Objective 3 – Create Solid Waste ManagementFacility Infrastructure

Strategy 3.4 – Develop El Dorado CountyComposting Facility


County jurisdictions do not currently haveany in-County composting facilities. On the West Slope, franchised haulers transport between15,000 and 16,000 tons of yard waste per yearout-of-County for use as compost, or asalternative daily cover, at out-of-County landfills.Organic material on the East Slope is transportedto Nevada. This material use provides theCounty with full diversion credits, however thematerial is not re-used within the County, endingup instead being composted at a facility in theCentral Valley (or Nevada). County jurisdictionssee an opportunity to utilize this material withinthe County and minimize the externalities oftransporting and processing the material at out-of-County facilities.

The WSJPA, or the County, should evaluatedevelopment of a new West El Dorado CountyComposting Facility. The WSJPA, or the County,could locate the West El Dorado CountyComposting Facility on the Union Mine Landfill,at the potential West Slope EcoPark facility, oron another County-owned property. While the

facility would be located on the West Slope, it ispossible that organic material could be transportedto the facility from the East Slope, depending onthe economics of transport and composting inNevada versus in-County.

Initially, the West El Dorado CountyComposting Facility should process (1) yard wasteloads collected by franchised haulers, and (2) cleanyard waste loads delivered by self haulers andlandscapers. Composting facility specificationsare identified inTable 5-1, left.

For yard waste composting, the West ElDorado County Composting Facility processshould consist of:

Cleaning incoming materials so they arefree of trash, debris, and waste

Grinding the materials (using ahorizontal grinder)

Using windrows for the composting processover 14 to 18 weeks (applying water andturning one to two times per week)

Removing oversized particles followingcomposting process (using a screen)

Selling or providing the finished productto County residents.

The WSJPA, or the County, should use finishedcomposted materials in the following ways:

Bulk commercial sale to nurseries andmaterials yards

Sale to landscapers Provide free to residents Use by County crews for parks and planting.

The facility would require: (1) a solid waste facilitypermit, (2) CEQA compliance, (3) conformanceto the County’s Non Disposal Facility Element,(4) meeting Regional Water Quality Control Board waste discharge requirements, and (5) air qualitypermits potentially required following passage of Assembly Bill 32 (Global Warming Bill).



5-9

Table 5-2West El Dorado County Composting Facility Timeline

Description Timing

Environmental review – Initial StudyPreparation, Completion ofEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR)

18 months

EIR public review and comment 6 months


Financing and construction (includessite improvements, equipment, buildings 18 months

Tentative operational date Within 5 years*a Depending on permits and available funding.

On the East Slope, the compostinginfrastructure is set up to handle organic materialsthrough at least the intermediate term of thisPlan. STR uses its Resource Recovery Facilityto manage organic materials collected from selfhaul customers. STR currently consolidates andtransfers compostable materials to a nearbycomposting facility, the Bently AgrowdynamicsCompost Facility, located in Douglas County,Nevada for processing to compost.


If implemented, the WSJPA, or the County,should develop the West El Dorado CountyComposting Facility during Phase 2. Tentativetiming for development of the compostingfacility is provided inTable 5-2, above, and ispredicated on successful completion of facilitysiting, permitting, and construction.

Costs/BenefitsEstimated permitting and equipment costs for

the West El Dorado County Composting Facility

are approximately $2 million to $4 million. Landcosts would vary, but costs to lease a 7-acre sitelikely approach several hundred thousand dollarsper year.

The WSJPA, or the County, would benefit fromincreased diversion and less environmental impac(from long-hauling the material). The WSJPA, orthe County, should provide the compost productto County residents, parks, and businesses.


Some residents will not want a compostingfacility near housing or commercial establishment(i.e., the NIMBY concern). There also are odorcontrol issues. Further, there are times when afacility cannot sell the compost material.

Strategy 3.10 –Develop Modern andEconomical MRF/TransferStation on the West Slope


Over the intermediate term, the WSJPA, or theCounty, should consider constructing an economicaalternative West Slope MRF/transfer station tothe current WERS facility. Features of this neweconomical MRF/transfer station could include:

7 to 15 acre parcel Covered building Dedicated self-haul area A modern single stream sort line C&D management area (and small sort line A buy-back center An HHW/ABOP facility An e-waste drop off area A material re-use area.

The WSJPA, or the County, should seek apublic-private partnership for this facility, with WSJPA, or the County, ownership of some/allof the facility, and a private sector operator.The overall approach for the facility would beto keep costs to a minimum with inexpensiveland, minimum facility requirements, lower costequipment options, and an efficient design.





The modern and economical MRF locationcould eventually be upgraded and expanded to anEcoPark, as described in Strategy 3.2. Buildingon this MRF site-selection process would reducecosts and impacts of an eventual EcoPark.


This facility construction process would followa similar 5-year development timeline to thatshown for the West El Dorado CountyComposting Facility in Table 5-2.

Costs/Benefits

Depending on the features of the new

economical West Slope MRF/transfer station,construction costs could range from $10 to $15million with annual operating costs (over andabove the current WERS operating costs) rangingfrom $200,000 to $400,000 per year.


Some residents will not want a new facilitylocated next to their property, the not-in-mybackyard (NIMBY) concern. The WSJPA, or the

County, should proceed through a CEQAprocess before permitting and constructing a new West Slope MRF/transfer station facility.

While this strategy is designed to provide alower-cost alternative to a full-scale West SlopeEcoPark (identified as a long-term strategy(Strategy 3.2)), the WSJPA, or the County,may not be in a position to afford an economicalnew MRF/ transfer station. If this strategy isdetermined economically feasible (e.g., followinga bid process), to mitigate potential cost impactsof this new facility, the WSJPA, or the County,should begin to identify ways to establishalternative funding mechanisms for the facility(such as low-interest facility financing, public-private partnerships, and rate funding in advanceof construction).

C. Objective 4 – Provide AlternativeSources of Funding for NewFacilities, Programs, and Services

Strategy 4.5 – Create New Funding Sourcesand Rate Mitigation Strategies


With the higher cost waste managementsystem, the WSJPA, or the County, may seek outadditional funding sources, or rate mitigationtactics, in the form of:

Capturing additional waste streams fromout-of-County areas, which serve to offsetnew infrastructure costs

Creating markets for recycled andcomposted products locally within theCounty, so the materials do not have tobe shipped long distances

Negotiating franchise agreements with ratestability mechanisms built into the ratesetting methodology (rate caps, rate freezes,maximum targeted profit levels)

Providing franchise agreements withincentives to reduce costs

Seeking State or federal grants for newfacilities and programs

Using existing low-interest facility financingavailable from the California PollutionControl Financing Authority (CPCFA).


The WSJPA, or the County, shouldcontinually seek these sources and strategiesthroughout the intermediate and long-termplanning horizon.

Costs/Benefits

Where possible, these strategies shouldminimize rate increases that may be required tofund new facilities, programs, and servicesidentified in this Plan. The WSJPA, or the



5-11

County, should also seek to implement feestructures that create economic incentives fordiversion activities.


There are minimal barriers to generatingadditional revenues sources.

D. Objective 5 –Determine andImplement AppropriatePerformance Tracking

Strategy 5.2 – Summarize, Report andEvaluate Metric Data


County jurisdictions should summarize andreport on the progress of strategies implemented.The County jurisdictions, or JPAs, shouldsummarize Plan outcomes when they becomeavailable in a bi-annual (every other year) reportprovided to constituents, policymakers, andstakeholders. This report should provide alinkage between costs and outcomes of newPlan programs and services. The report shoulddemonstrate Plan progress and provide anopportunity to adjust Plan strategies if necessary.The County jurisdictions, or JPAs, shouldprovide these data analyses and evaluations in aneffort to provide accountability for past andfuture solid waste management programinvestment decisions.

Costs/Benefits

The costs to collect, summarize, and reportmetric data would be modest and likely wouldrequire County jurisdictions or JPA analyst staff

time. There may be some moderate costs for thefranchised haulers or facility operators to assist with collecting and reporting program data. Thebenefits are significant in terms of being able toconclude whether a new program or service hasmet its intended objective and was worth theinvestment. In addition, County jurisdictions canutilize the performance information gathered inthe reporting process to refine and improve thesenew programs and policies.


County jurisdictions may be faced with thechallenge of explaining why a program or servicedidn’t meet its intended objective or is notperforming well. County jurisdictions also maybe faced with the challenge of not being able tocollect a sufficient amount of data, or having tomake conclusions from poor quality data. County jurisdictions should make every effort up front

(before strategy implementation) to developperformance metrics that are reasonably measurabCounty jurisdictions should develop the datacollection design early in the process so that it canavoid potential data collection or integrity issues.


County jurisdictions should report metric dataas it is collected in Phases 2 and 3.








Section 6

Phase 3: Long-Term Strategies



6. Phase 3:Long-Term Strategies

This section describes the long-term strategies of the County’s future solid wastemanagement system.Figure 6-1, on page 6-2, summarizes a total of eleven (11)strategies to implement in the long-term. The long-term is defined as the period from2026 through 2040. The strategies implemented in Phase 3 should reflect the evolutionof solid waste management infrastructure and programs over the next fifteen years (20to 2026). The specific strategies to be implemented during Phase 3 may include a mixof Phase 1 and Phase 2 strategies, as well as new approaches to solid waste managemeto be determined over time. A likely focus during Phase 3 would be regional solid wasmanagement to support alternative technologies and infrastructure.

The eleven Phase 3 strategies support four of the five objectives, as follows: Objective 1 – Develop Authorities for Future Solid Waste Management

Strategy 1.5 – Create a Regional Joint Powers Authority Objective 2 – Create New and Enhanced County Solid Waste Management

Programs and Services Strategy 2.14 – Prepare for Possible Elimination of Residential Yard WasteBurning on West Slope

Strategy 2.19 – Use Advanced Technologies for Collection Trucks and Vehicles Objective 3 – Create Solid Waste Management Facility Infrastructure

Strategy 3.2 – Develop a West Slope EcoPark

Strategy 3.3 – Re-Open Union Mine Landfill Strategy 3.6 – Plan for Conversion Technologies, if Economically andOperationally Feasible

Strategy 3.7 – Enhance County Composting Facility to Manage DivertedFood Waste and Other Organics

Strategy 3.8 – Renovate South Lake Tahoe (SLT) Material Recovery Facilityand Transfer Station to Accept Single Stream Recyclables

Objective 4 – Provide Alternative Sources of Funding for New Facilities,Programs, and Services

Strategy 4.2 – Develop South Lake Tahoe Transfer Station/MRF, West

Slope EcoPark and Union Mine Landfill Fees Strategy 4.3 – Add Administrative Fee to Future Union Mine LandfillTipping Fee

Strategy 4.4 – Increase Union Mine Landfill Methane Gas Production.

The right-most columns of Figure 6-1 show whether the strategy is designed to movthe County toward a 75 percent diversion rate, or whether the strategy is currently aState-mandated requirement.





6-3

A. Objective 1 – Develop Authorities for Future CountySolid Waste Management

Strategy 1.5 – Create a Regional Joint Powers Authority


In this strategy, the WSJPA would have theoption to evolve into a Regional JPA. The WSJPA would obtain Regional Agency certification fromCalRecycle. The WSJPA also would assess whether to expand its membership to potentiallyinclude areas outside of the County. Certainneighboring jurisdictions, including the City ofFolsom and Amador County, could potentiallybe integrated into a regional JPA.

At the discretion of the WSJPA, the West Slope jurisdictions also should evaluate whether tobecome a Regional Agency (RA) in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 40970. An RA must be certified by CalRecycle. As an RA,the WSJPA can submit required State of Californiaannual reports, disposal reports, and otherreporting data to CalRecycle as one unit withoutreporting information for each jurisdiction. Severalof the West Slope jurisdictions have expressed aninterest in exploring this RA designation.

At this time, the WSJPA also should reviewthe JPA Joint Powers Agreement to determine ifthe agreement meets the needs of theparticipating member agencies.

In the event that the WSJPA does not evolveinto a Regional JPA, the WSJPA should continueto move forward with this Plan.


The WSJPA and additional jurisdictionsshould consider forming a Regional Agency byDecember 31, 2026.

Costs/Benefits

There is a cost (staff time, legal review) forthe parties to apply for RA designation withCalRecycle. The regional agency benefits include

further economies of scale with expandedmembership, consolidated diversion reportingefforts to CalRecycle, and the continuing ongoingbenefits described for the WSJPA in Strategy 1.1.


Neighboring out-of-County members mayalready have long-term agreements to use otherfacilities, or may have negotiated lower cost optiothan the WSJPA can provide. The WSJPA would

need to provide these potential regional memberagencies with compelling reasons to join fromboth an economic and diversion standpoint.

B. Objective 2 – Create Newand Enhanced County Solid

Waste Management Programsand Services

Organics and Composting PracticesStrategy 2.14 – Prepare for Possible

Elimination of Residential Yar Waste Burning on West Slope


While the County already has restrictions onyard waste burning, this practice may ultimatelybe phased out of all but the most rural areas forhealth, fire safety, and environmental (air quality)

concerns. Elimination of yard waste burning maybe decided at the State level, potentially driven byair quality and greenhouse gas emission reductionBecause this issue is highly controversial, thissection provides a detailed discussion of issues toconsider should the County be required to, orchoose to, eliminate yard waste burning.



6. Phase 3: Long Term Strategies


There is currently a County Ordinance1 allowing regulated yard waste burning duringcertain hours, on certain days, during certaintimes of year. Burning may only be conductedon allowable burn days. The County specifiesthat the materials to be burned must originatefrom within 100 feet of a single or two familydwelling, must be burned on the premises itoriginated from, and be limited to: waste fromtrees, vines, brush, leaves, lawn clippings, anddry plants. A free burn permit must be obtainedfrom the El Dorado County Air QualityManagement District for burn piles over fourfeet by four feet in size. These permits are validfor a calendar year.

In 2009, the County issued 480 yard wasteburning permits. Burn permits are not requiredfor burning piles less than four feet by four feet.Such smaller burn piles are common; however,the County does not have an estimate of thefrequency of smaller burn piles. The Air QualityManagement District receives approximately fortycomplaints about yard waste burning each year, with most complaints occurring between Octoberand February (when most burning occurs).

Yard waste burning is more common in themost rural portions of the unincorporatedCounty. There is no yard waste burning allowedin the Tahoe Basin. The Cameron Park CSDonly allows two weeks of burning in the spring,and two weeks in the fall. The City of Placervilledoes not allow any open burning during the fireseason – May 1st through October or November.

Open burning of yard waste produces

particulate matter, hydrocarbons, and carbonmonoxide. These materials are associated withacute and chronic health impacts. Yard wasteburning results in air pollution and smokeparticles also pollute water and soil. Yard waste

1 Represents local ordinance, not a State Air Resources Boardrequirement.

fires that get out of control can cause wildfires.Thus, yard waste burning imposes health,financial, and environmental costs in thecommunity. Because yard waste burning has beencommonplace in the County, a ban will not beeffective unless there are viable alternatives. TheCounty should establish yard waste collection(Strategy 2.7), yard waste drop-off facilities inrural locations (Strategy 3.5), chipping (at MRFsand mobile chippers), and home compostingalternatives (Strategy 2.13). The County shouldalso launch an outreach program to educateresidents on the impacts of yard waste burning,as well as alternatives (Strategy 2.17).

California Health and Safety Code, Sections41802 to 41805, address yard waste burning.Essentially, the Code allows Air QualityManagement Districts (AQMDs or districts) to“authorize the disposal, by open outdoor fires,of such waste [wood waste from trees, vines, orbushes], on the property where it was grown”under the following conditions:

The district finds that it is moredesirable to dispose of green waste byburning than other available means,such as sanitary landfills

The district has developed criteria,approved by the state, for yard wasteburning to reduce smoke levels

The district shall issue a permit, and noburning shall be allowed on days during which agricultural burning is prohibited.

The Code has a provision that the state may makea finding that “an alternative method of disposal

has been developed which is technologically andeconomically feasible.” Thus, at some point theState may ban yard waste burning, but currently,it is up to localities to determine yard waste policies, within State guidelines.



6-5

There are basic requirements of yard wasteburning that are similar in all areas where it isallowed. For example, piles may be no larger thanfour feet by four feet in size, must be at least tenfeet away from other combustibles, and must beattended by an adult. The resident must provideadequate water and a shovel, burn only dryvegetation, avoid burning when smoke willimpact neighboring properties, and only burnmaterials on the property where they grew. Animportant consideration is that individuals areliable for damages if their fire escapes. Burningany other garbage, and use of burn barrels, areillegal in California. During fire season (April orMay through October or November), the

California Department of Forestry and FireProtection (CalFire) requires permits for allyard waste burning. Permit requirements inthe remainder of the year vary by county. Allcounties that allow burning limit yard wasteburning to designated “burn days” when windand weather conditions are appropriate.

Although state law allows yard waste burning,many districts do not. For example, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District(SJVAPCD) has not allowed yard waste burningsince the district was formed in 1992, and manyof the counties in the district have not allowedyard waste burning since the 1970s or 1980s.The SJVAPCD includes valley and mountaincounties with rural characteristics: San Joaquin,Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings,Tulare, and Kern. The SJVAPCD enforces theban, and issues a number of tickets each year toresidents that violate the restriction.

Comparison with Other Counties

We assessed yard burning policies at severalother counties that are adjacent to El DoradoCounty, and/or similar in terms of populationcharacteristics. We selected four counties that hadnot only similar total populations, but that had a

relatively large percent of the population inunincorporated areas, as does El Dorado County.2 All four counties currently allow some yard wasteburning, during portions of the year, and inportions of the County. Below, we briefly describeyard waste burning policies in each county.

Nevada County has a population of 98,680, with 67 percent of residents residing inunincorporated areas. Like El Dorado County,Nevada County ranges from the SacramentoValley to the State of Nevada border. NevadaCounty encourages residents to “attempt a cleanapproach” such as composting, green waste pick-up, or chipping before utilizing burning. Similarto El Dorado County, the Nevada County FireSafe Council has a free shipping and shreddingprogram in Western Nevada County. Becauseof smoke, Western Nevada County restrictsburning of leaves and pine needles to those“where the leaves or pine needles are dry andattached to branches or make up no more than20 percent by volume of any burn pile.” Inaddition, open burning cannot be conducted within 50 feet of any structure.

Placer County has a population of 347,102, with 32 percent of residents residing inunincorporated areas. Placer County does notrequire a burn permit for “residential allowableburning”, which includes materials from a single otwo family dwelling, limited to dry tree trimmingdry leaves and pine needles, and dry plants and weeds. The county does not allow lawn clippings be burned. Placer County encourages alternativesto burning, and does not allow burning on federalholidays. Within the county, the cities of Rocklin,Roseville, and Lincoln do not allow burning.Because of adverse health impacts, the county

2 In 2010, El Dorado County had a population of 182,019, with147,503 in unincorporated areas. However, subtracting outEDHCSD and CPCSD, which operate more like incorporatedareas, approximately 52 percent of the County populationresides in unincorporated areas.





issued a Colfax Neighborhood Residential Burning Advisory requesting residents near ColfaxElementary and Colfax High Schools to voluntarilyrefrain from burning when children are present.

Within the county, the City of Auburn allowsburning only on burn days between November 1and May 31, and reserves the right to suspendburning during that period. Residents must obtaina permit from the City of Auburn Fire Department,and follow the same guidelines as the county.

The community of Granite Bay implementedadditional restrictions on yard waste burning.In 2000, the number of complaints related toyard burning in Granite Bay was increasing. In

March 2002, the Granite Bay Municipal AdvisoryCommittee (MAC) created a “Residential BurnCompromise Committee” to “determine thedesire of the community and to recommend acompromise policy that would satisfy the citizenson both sides of the issue (suburban and rural).”The committee’s name reflects the nature ofdiscussions on the topic. In March 2003, thecommittee’s recommendations were endorsed bythe MAC. The Granite Bay policies affect residents

in only two zip codes (95746 and 95661).Residents must obtain a burn permit from theSouth Placer Fire Protection Council, and mayonly burn on designated burn days between the1st and 15th of each month, and between 8 a.m.and 5p.m. (extended to 7p.m. in May).

San Luis Obispo County is larger than ElDorado County, with a population of 273,231,but with a similar 44 percent of residents livingin unincorporated areas. The Air Pollution

Control District of San Luis Obispo County(District) began phasing out backyard burning ofgreen waste material in developed portions of thecounty in 2000. In urbanized areas of the county where alternatives to burning are available,burning is prohibited. The county has previously well-defined “Urban Reserve Lines” (URL) and“Village Reserve Lines” (VRL) separating

urban/suburban and rural land uses, and utilizedthese boundaries to specify areas where burningis allowed. The county has banned green wasteburning within URL or VRL zones. Yard wasteburning is more restrictive than El DoradoCounty in those areas where it is allowed. Whereburning is allowed, county provisions include:

Burn hours between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. A permit (including $25 fee) is required

for all backyard burning Burning of grass clippings, piled leaves,

and piled pine needles is prohibited No burning is allowed within five days of

measurable rainfall

Specific minimum drying times Larger clearance zones from structures.

San Luis Obispo County’s efforts to ban yard waste in most areas began prior to 2000, and tookapproximately three years. Today, only 20 percentof the county’s residents live in rural areas whereburning is allowed. The process of eliminatingburning in the rest of the county was involved.Initially, the District, local governments, the

County solid waste coordinator, and Solid Waste Authority met and developed a strategy. Thecounty also worked with CalFire and the localFire Safe Committee throughout the transitionperiod. A key step was to obtain the support ofthe air district board, and the county Board ofSupervisors. In addition, the district obtainedsupport of the County Health Commission,due to the negative health impacts of burning.

The second step was to ensure that local

governments could work with solid wastefranchisees to provide alternatives – i.e. yard waste collection. Yard waste collection needed tobe both financially and technically feasible. Thedistrict implemented extensive education andoutreach, including education at schools, and forrural advisory councils. To reduce resistance to



6-7

the ban, the District started with incorporatedcities, and more suburban areas, graduallyextending the ban to less populated towns. Thecounty allowed some communities to keepyard burning in place, but made the communitiesresponsible for developing fire hazard reductionprograms, permits, etc. Another initiative was togive away home chippers, and to provide freechipping days in some neighborhoods.

The county enforces the yard waste burningrestrictions. Over the first few years, residentsthat received tickets were required to attend aclass on alternatives to burning (composting,chipping). While the county developed a multi-year plan for the effort, there was still publicobjection. A key factor in changing opinions waseducation about the health impacts of burning.

Butte County is slightly larger than El DoradoCounty, with a population of 221,768. Approximately 38 percent of residents live inunincorporated areas of the county. Inunincorporated areas, the county does require apermit (but no fees) during fire season, but nopermit from the end of fire season (October of

November) through April 30th

. There are no burnhour restrictions from November 1st to April 10th,but burn hours are restricted to 6 a.m. to 11 a.m.after May 1. The City of Biggs has restrictions onburn hours, 6 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 6 a.m. to 2p.m., depending on the time of year. The City ofChico does not allow residential yard wasteburning. The Town of Paradise allows burningonly between March 1st and May 31st, and duringa special fall burn period, typically Novemberthrough December. Burn hours in Paradise arelimited to between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., and thecommunity is split, with some portions burningonly during the first half of the month, and othersin the second half of the month. This provision,implemented several years ago, reportedlyimproved conditions for residents, who could planoutdoor activities around burn days.

In February 2010, the Butte County AirQuality Management District (District) proposedamendments to the open burning regulations.These amendments, although relatively minor,have been controversial, and as of November2010, have not been adopted. The intent of theamendments was to reduce the emissions(particular matter) from open burning, and thepotential for smoke impacts surrounding theCity of Chico. The initial proposed regulationseliminated burning in the “Chico Sphere ofInfluence”, and added restrictions in theMagalia/Upper Ridge area to match the Townof Paradise periods. In addition, within theMagalia/Upper Ridge area, the proposed

regulations restricted burning in one portion toallowable burn days in the first half of themonth, and in the remaining area, to allowableburn days in the second half of the month.

The District has held several public hearingson the proposed regulations, and has amendedthem during the course of 2010. The regulationsmay continue to be amended based on publiccomment. As of November 2010, the Districtrevised the proposed regulations to extent theMagalia/Upper Ridge burning months to Januarythrough June, and expanding the burn hours to8:45 to one hour before sunset, consistent withthe rest of the unincorporated county. Staffrejected a request to lower the lot size of theMagalia/Upper Ridge restrictions from one acreto one-half acre. Burning in the Chico Sphere ofInfluence will be restricted only in lots under oneacre in size. In response to public comments, staffalso removed a provision to restrict the amount

of pine needles and leaves to be burned. Timerestrictions for burning will match those foragricultural burning, a change which has thesupport of the agricultural community.

One of the factors that Butte County isevaluating is the need to allow some burning onlarger properties for fire hazard reduction. This





may also be an issue in El Dorado County. Anyburn restrictions may need to make a distinctionbetween burning as a disposal method, andburning for fire hazard. The experience in ButteCounty illustrates the challenges inherent inreducing or restricting yard waste burningoptions in rural areas. As with other regions thathave implemented restrictions, extensive publicoutreach is a critical component.


The County may be required to implement ayard waste burning ban if such a policy isimplemented at the State level. The Countyshould provide education on yard waste burningalternatives, and implement alternatives toburning, over the next several years, prior toeliminating yard waste burning.

Implementation should require a multi-facetedplan for each region, including:

Conducting a series of meetings with agenciesand entities involved in implementing thestrategy. For example, the yard wasteburning policy would involve a number ofentities, including: the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District, WestSlope franchisees, County EnvironmentalManagement Department, Fire Districts, FireSafe Council, CalFire, and County Publicand Environmental Health Departments.The purpose of these start-up meetings would be to refine the implementation planand ensure that all relevant organizationsare aware of the policy changes, and wouldprovide support (and resources)

Developing an outreach program that

identifies policy benefits. These benefitsinclude: improved air quality, reducedhealth impacts from smoke, reduced firedanger, and reduced environmentalcontamination from ash

Meeting with residents in affectedcommunities to present outreach programs,discuss new policies, answer questions,

obtain input on implementation details,and address concerns

Developing a County Ordinance to codifythe new requirements; amend existingordinances, as necessary. The Country

should work with the Board of Supervisorsto approve the ordinance changes.

Costs/Benefits

As an alternative to yard waste burning,providing and servicing rural drop-off facilities andyard waste cart collection would increase systemcosts. These service increases would be reflectedin rates. Eliminating yard waste burning reduceshealth and environmental costs, as well as fire risks.


There may be opposition, particularly in morerural areas, to eliminating the burn option. Educationand outreach can help address opposition, asdiscussed in the implementation strategy. County jurisdictions should implement alternatives toburning prior to a ban on yard waste burning.

Evolve Collection Trucksand Equipment to ImproveCarbon Emissions

Strategy 2.19 – Use AdvancedTechnologies for CollectionTrucks and Vehicles


County jurisdictions should explore optionsover the long-term for advanced fuel, hybrid,and/or electric trucks and vehicles to be part ofthe franchise hauler’s collection fleet and supportvehicles. As new truck and vehicle technologiesevolve, County jurisdictions should incorporatethese fuel-saving or lower emitting trucks andvehicles into the franchised haulers operations.



6-9


This strategy should be phased-in with truckand vehicle replacement schedules over the 2026to 2040 timeframe. The City of South Lake

Tahoe received a grant to purchase an alternativefuel garbage truck as part of their multi-familyrecycling grant; however, it is not certain whenthis truck would be purchased.

Costs/Benefits

Unknown costs at this time.


Unknown barriers at this time. These newtechnologies may be more costly.

C. Objective 3 – Create Solid Waste ManagementFacility Infrastructure

Strategy 3.2 – Develop a West Slope EcoPark


The existing materials recovery and transfer

station facility on the West Slope of the Countyis owned and operated by Western El DoradoRecovery Systems California, a Waste Connectionssubsidiary. Virtually all West Slope franchised andself-haul materials pass through the WERS facility.3

El Dorado Disposal Service, also a WasteConnections subsidiary, provides refuse, recycling,and yard waste collection services to most WestSlope areas. El Dorado Disposal Service providesthese services under franchise agreements with the

City of Placerville, Cameron Park CommunityServices District, El Dorado Hills CommunityServices District, and El Dorado County.

3 With the exception of material collected by American RiverDisposal Service. This material is transferred to the South Tahoe Refuse facility in the City of South Lake Tahoe.

Table 6-1West Slope EcoPark Specifications

Description Initial Design Specification

Designation Large volume transfer station/processing facility (LVTSPF)

Permitted Acreage 15 to 20 acresBuilding Size 100,000 to 200,000 square feet

Source Separated Tonsper Day Capacity 200 T/d

Solid Waste Tons perDay Capacity 500 T/d

Green Waste Tons perDay Capacity 150 T/d

Construction andDemolition Tons perDay Capacity

100 T/d

The current franchise agreement with WasteConnections, the owner/operator of the WERSfacility, expires on December 31, 2012. Thefranchise agreement allows the County to extendthe term an additional two years until December31, 2014. The timing of this Plan effort providesthe County an opportunity to plan for a new WestSlope facility that meets the County’s needs for thnext twenty (20) to thirty (30) years or longer.

To meet evolving long-term waste managementneeds, the WSJPA, or the County, could develop anew West Slope EcoPark. Specifications for the WesSlope EcoPark facility are shown inTable 6-1.

The new EcoPark concept would be a vibrantand dynamic source separation system that wouldcontinuously evolve to accommodate the flexibilitadaptability, and expansion of new products

(e.g., textiles and small electrical appliances).The EcoPark would address the County’s solid waste management challenges into the future.The following is a list of the facility’s elements:

A fully enclosed building to mitigate noise,odor, and vector issues.





A full-scale transfer station to service publicself-haul and commercial haulers with acapacity of 500 tons per day, with potentialfor some growth.

A proposed Materials Recovery Facility

(MRF) designed to accommodate peakself-haul traffic and incorporate newertechnologies to recover more recyclablematerials– An EcoPark would havetwelve (12) to fifteen (15) self-haul baysto facilitate vehicle flow and provide spaceto sort and manage individual self-haulloads. The design of the facility wouldallow for vehicles to easily enter and exitthe tipping area.

State-of-the-art MRF sort line for processingsource separated materials and/or mixedwaste with a capacity of 200 tons per day – An EcoPark would have a MRF sort linecapable of processing commingled singlestream recyclables (i.e., those collected inthe residential, multi-family residential,and commercial recycling programs). Thematerials sort line also would have thecapability to sort recyclable materials fromthe refuse stream as the WERS does now(“dirty MRF”). This dual purpose MRFsort line would allow the County to

maximize its diversion. As the recyclingprograms mature and County diversionincreases, the County would use the sortline less as a “dirty MRF.”

The sort line would provide a “continuousfeed” so that materials could be re-runthrough the system multiple times, andresiduals minimized.

Appendix C provides a discussion of dirtyversus clean MRFs, including the strengthsand weaknesses of both types and a

framework for deciding which facility typethe community should include within the West Slope EcoPark.

A full scale, state-of-the-art Construction andDemolition (C&D) processing operation witha capacity of 100 tons per day – The C&Dsort line would allow the County tomanually remove materials from C&D

loads. With this new sort line, sorters would remove materials from an elevatedsort line and deposit materials, by materialtype, into debris boxes located below thesort line.

The operator would sort discrete materialsin advance of materials being delivered tothe line. The operator would use front-endloaders and/or excavators to directlyseparate and deposit larger items requiringlittle or no processing into debris boxes, bymaterial type.

Materials sorted by the C&D line wouldinclude used building materials (e.g., scraplumber, doors, windows, plumbingfixtures, and ceramics), concrete, asphalt,roofing materials, bricks, and mixeddemolition debris (i.e., metals, wood waste, and bulky material).

A full scale green/wood material chipping and grinding operation with a capacity of 150 tons per day– An EcoPark would have thecapability to process incoming green and wood material with chipping and grindingoperations. The EcoPark would have a woodgrinder for this purpose. The County woulduse the ground material for alternative uses,including as Alternative Daily Cover (ADC),pressed board, and other uses.

A household hazardous waste collection area –Consistent with the current offerings at the WERS MRF, the EcoPark facility wouldhave a permanent Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) facility with the capabilityto accept the following materials:

Automobile and household batteries Cleaners Fluorescent lights Gasoline Microwave ovens Oils and oil filters Pesticides Pool supplies Propane tanks (small).



6-11

An e-waste drop off collection area –Consistent with the current offerings atthe WERS MRF, the EcoPark would havea separate designated drop off area for:

Answering machines

Cathode ray tubes (CRTs) Computers, monitors, and peripherals Copiers CD and DVD players Fax machines Radios Stereo equipment Telephones (standard and cordless) Televisions.

A recycling “buy back” center – the site would have a certified recycling center(RC) with the State of California. The site would buy back various materials,including glass, metals, paper, and plastic.

A material re-use area – The EcoPark wouldhave a designated re-use area with binsand areas to store drop off materials thatCounty customers could come and pickupat no charge (e.g., clothing, furniture).

Space for future conversion technologies A public education center – The center would allow visual observation of materialsmanagement and MRF sort line activities.The County would use the center forschool field trips and teaching childrenabout recycling. The County wouldprovide facility tours to the public.

An administration building and parking for staff Scales and scale house A truck/equipment maintenance center Adequate parking for rolling stock (transfer

trailers and commodity trucks) Space for a detention pond (bioswale) Visitor parking Landscaping

Circulation and maneuverability An LEED certified design – The EcoPark would be constructed using sustainablepractices and materials, and will be eligiblefor Leadership in Energy and Environment

Design (LEED) certification. Wherepossible, the County should use recycledconstruction materials for the facilityincluding base rock, fiberglass and/orcellulose insulation, wall paneling,bathroom tiles, bathroom partitions,and floor coverings.

Appendix D provides a discussion of thematerial processing and handling operations fora West Slope EcoPark. This appendix includes a

detailed discussion of the operations related to thetransfer station, materials recovery, green/woodmaterial chipping, C&D facility, the reuse area,future conversion technologies, hazardous wastefacility, self haul areas, and buy back center. Theappendix also provides an overview of the ancillafacility requirements (e.g., roads, circulation) andpermitting requirements.

The WSJPA, or the County, should have someownership of the West Slope EcoPark, and

contract with a private vendor to operate thefacility. Under this public-private model, the WSJPA, or the County, can balance costs andhave control over the management andoperations of the facility. The WSJPA, or theCounty, also would have facility continuity intothe future, should the operating contract changefrom vendor to vendor.

If the WSJPA, or the County, is unable tofinance the West Slope EcoPark, the WSJPA, or

the County, should contract with a privatevendor to construct, own, and operate the WestSlope EcoPark. Under this scenario, the WSJPA,or the County, would explore opportunities forthe private vendor to design and build thisfacility on County land (similar to the EasternResource Recovery Facility in Eastern Placer





County). This scenario would provide the WSJPA, or the County, with some ownershipinvolvement in the property, but leave the facilitydesign, construction, and management to theprivate sector. In this County land ownershipscenario, the WSJPA, or the County, would leasethe land to the vendor.

Appendix E provides an overview of a siteselection process conducted to identify potentiallocations for the West Slope EcoPark. Theappendix provides a structured process used toidentify a short list of eight (8) potential locationsfor a West Slope EcoPark. Section 2.1 in Appendix E characterizes these eight (8) potentiallocations as either highly compatible, verycompatible, or moderately compatible withCounty objectives.


A West Slope EcoPark likely would take aminimum of approximately five (5) years tocomplete from the date the WSJPA, or theCounty, began to prepare an EnvironmentalImpact Report (EIR). If implemented, the

WSJPA, or the County, would complete the West Slope EcoPark during Phase 3.Table 6-2, above, provides approximate time periods fordevelopment phases of a West Slope EcoPark.

Costs/Benefits

The WSJPA, or the County, is in a situation where it will be cautious with expenditures for anew West Slope EcoPark for the following reasons:

The amount of expected material

throughput (e.g., 200 tons per day forrecycling) for a West Slope EcoPark isnot sufficient to justify over-designing afacility (e.g., one capable of acceptingregional flow beyond the County)

Given the recent recession, and the pooreconomic conditions, the County wantsto minimize ratepayer impacts

Table 6-2West Slope EcoPark Timeline

Description Timing

Environmental review – Initial StudyPreparation, Completion ofEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR)

18 months

EIR public review and comment 12 months


Financing and construction 18 months

Tentative operational date Within 5 years

The County’s population is stable and,based on current trends, is not expected

to grow as rapidly as it has in the past.

The WSJPA, or the County, desires the meansnecessary to effectively manage its integrated waste management needs for the nextapproximately twenty (20) years. The WSJPA,or the County, faces a challenging balance ofdeveloping a fully functional, but relativelyaffordable, West Slope EcoPark.

Construction costs for a new West Slope

EcoPark, even using a cost-effective design, areestimated to be between $24 and $39 million.Total operating and maintenance (O&M) costsfor a West Slope EcoPark are estimated to bebetween $50 and $70 per ton. O&M costsinclude labor, equipment maintenance, anddisposal costs for residue.

The WSJPA, or the County, does not want tooverspend on a “white elephant” facility that failsto “pencil out” economically. The WSJPA, or the

County, does not necessarily need to invest in agold-plated “state-of-the-art” facility. A summaryof pros and cons of a new West Slope EcoPark areshown in Table 6-3, on the next page.

The WSJPA, or the County, likely would needto increase customer rates, and tipping feecharges (for self haul customers), to fund







County is discussing a possible franchiseextension with South Tahoe Refuse (STR) forservice to unincorporated areas in the TahoeBasin. The City of South Lake Tahoe has afranchise agreement with STR through 2028.

The County also recognizes that County areasserved by Tahoe-Truckee Sierra DisposalCompany (TTSD) use an existing EasternRegional Landfill and Transfer Station in PlacerCounty (a facility with a MRF).

Strategy 3.3 – Re-Open Union Mine Landfill


The Union Mine Landfill is the only active,permitted, landfill on the West Slope of ElDorado County. The Union Mine Landfill ceasedoperating as a public disposal facility in 1996 dueto a landslide on the access road. Beginning in1998, County jurisdictions stopped using thefacility for franchised waste disposal. Since thattime, the Union Mine Landfill has remained openfor disposal of on-site sludge only. The UnionMine Landfill has an active solid waste facilitypermit (SWFP). A profile of the Union MineLandfill is shown inTable 6-4, above.

Currently, the Union Mine Landfill accepts“sludge cake” from an on-site wastewatertreatment plant. The County also collectsmethane gas from the Union Mine Landfill.

County jurisdictions currently export all oftheir waste to out-of-County landfills fordisposal. For virtually all West Slope areas,franchised haulers consolidate and transfer waste

to Potrero Hills Landfill in Solano County. Thetrip distance is 180 miles roundtrip to PotreroHills Landfill.

Table 6-4Union Mine Landfill Profile

Description AcresPermittedCapacity

(cubic yards)Status

Class II Expansion 6.0 195,000 Active

Proposed Expansion(1994) 26.5 5,200,000 Proposed

Class III Closed 36.3 – Closed

County jurisdictions could internalize their waste stream, reduce disposal costs, and minimizeenvironmental impacts from long-hauling refuseto out-of County facilities. In an effort to

internalize solid waste, and utilize the existinglandfill capacity already present within theCounty, County jurisdictions should evaluate re-opening the Union Mine Landfill to accept wastetransported from the current Western El DoradoRecovery Systems, Inc. (WERS) materialrecovery facility/transfer station, and/oreventually from a new MRF/transfer station.

Appendix F provides a detailed discussion ofthe potential use of the Union Mine Landfill.This appendix includes the regulatoryrequirements, permitting requirements,expansion potential, geotechnical considerations,excavation/fill requirements, site life, facilityimprovements, access road requirements, andconceptual engineering drawings associated withuse of the Union Mine Landfill.

In 2009, following a request for proposalprocess, the County selected STI Engineering ofSilverado to develop a landfill gas utilizationproject at the Union Mine Landfill. TheEnvironmental Management Department wasdirected to negotiate a contract for the project toinclude electricity generation, usage, and revenuesharing. If a contract can be successfullynegotiated, STI will use a steam injection processto increase methane gas production at the



6-15

landfill. The methane will be used to generateelectricity to supply the onsite wastewatertreatment plant. It will also be used to generatecommodities that will be marketed. Thosecommodities may include electricity, frozencarbon dioxide/dry ice, and liquid hydrocarbonproducts. STI Engineering will pay the Countyroyalties on the sale of the commodities. Shouldthe County reopen Union Mine Landfill, theamount of gas collected and converted willsubstantially increase.


In order to use Union Mine Landfill for disposal,the County could:

1. Initially utilize the Unit 1 area “active”area (150,000 cubic yards of capacity)

2. Obtain permits for and begin to utilize,the Unit 2 area (currently closed) to use when the Unit 1 area is full. Thisadditional capacity could take the Countythrough 2040 and beyond. The UnionMine Landfill obtained CEQA clearancefor this expansion in 1994

3. Consider other expansion capabilities for

the landfill. The Union Mine Landfill hassubstantial increased capacity potential

4. Evaluate access road improvement ornew alternatives

5. Conduct environmental review and designa new access road

6. Construct road improvements or a newaccess road.

Costs/Benefits

A summary of pros and cons of a reopening theUnion Mine Landfill are shown inTable 6-5. There are costs associated with obtainingadditional permitted capacity for the UnionMine Landfill (permit, design, engineering,construction). There are costs associated withdesigning and constructing a new access road.

Table 6-5Re-Opening Union Mine LandfillPros and Cons

Pros Cons

Results in lower overalltipping fee (includingcombined transfer, transport,and landfill disposal)

Requires access roadimprovements which couldcost $14 million, or more

Provides County withgreater control over costs,fees, and risks associated

with managing the County’ssolid waste system

Necessitate costs to improveand expand the UnionMine Landfill of betweenapproximately $16 and $76per ton of landfill capacitydepending on the scenario(see Table F-4 in Appendix F)

No longer relies on third-party to accept landfillCounty waste, and chargetipping fee

Requires regulatory andpermitting hurdles (e.g.,EIR process)

Eliminates long-haultransportation costs fortransporting refuse to out-of-County facility (problematic

with current diesel fuelprices of $4 per gallon)

Increasing overallsystem operations andmaintenance costs forUnion Mine Landfill

Would enhance gas-to-energycapabilities (STI Engineering)

Creates potential risk ofliability to County fromoperating and managingan active landifll

Provides ability of County togenerate usage fees

Avoids future potential

requirement to pay for greenhouse gas emission creditsfor long-haul emissions(not in affect yet)

County jurisdictions likely would be able tofund some recycling programs through tippingfees charged on waste entering Union MineLandfill. The County jurisdictions would increasemethane gas collection using the system already

onsite, a potential source of revenue to offsetfacility operating costs.

Also, County jurisdictions would not bebeholden to other landfill owner/operators feesfor disposal. The County may be able to marketthe facility to other jurisdictions to realize someeconomies of scale at the Union Mine Landfill.





By keeping the waste disposal local, the County jurisdictions would: (1) save costs to consolidatematerial at the transfer station, and (2) save long-haul transportation costs (of particular importancein light of recent fuel prices). County jurisdictionsalso would minimize environmental impacts (i.e.,pollution) currently associated with long-hauling the waste out-of-County. Finally, the County jurisdictions should expect to employ additional workers to operate the re-opened landfill.


There is a high school on Union Mine Road,the current access road to the Union Mine Landfill.This access road is a two-lane rural road that isnarrow, steep, and winding. The access road is notideally suited for heavy truck use. Use by collectiontrucks would conflict with high school vehicletraffic and other neighborhood vehicle traffic.To mitigate for these access road limitations, theCounty should design and construct a new accessroad to Union Mine Landfill.

As another measure for mitigating trafficcongestion in the area, the County jurisdictions

should not use Union Mine Landfill for self-haulloads. The County jurisdictions also shouldcarefully plan traffic patterns to limit the numberof trucks per hour entering the facility.

The County should use cells with sophisticatedliner and leachate collection systems inconformance with Subtitle D requirements. Asanother protective measure, the County shouldcontinue to plug on-site mines to minimize thepotential for accidental discharges of

contaminated groundwater to mine openingslocated on the site.

Waste Connections currently uses Potrero HillsLandfill. On a per ton basis, this larger regionallandfill may provide lower landfill tipping fees incomparison to the landfill tipping fees the Countymay have to charge at Union Mine Landfill. This

landfill tipping fee difference may be most evidentduring periods when the County jurisdictions areamortizing new capital outlays for Union MineLandfill upgrades. The County jurisdictions would need to demonstrate that the net overallsystem costs (including consolidation,transportation, and disposal) are more favorable tothe County jurisdictions over the long-term.

As the County jurisdictions currently export allof their waste, the County jurisdictions do nothave to manage the potential environmentalimpacts of continued use of Union MineLandfill. However, out-of-County residents mayobject in the future to taking another County’s waste which may jeopardize the export option forEl Dorado County.

Strategy 3.6 – Plan for ConversionTechnologies, if Economicaland Operationally Feasible


The County is working towards being able totake advantage of increases in methane gas-to-energy conversion at Union Mine Landfill. If a

contract is established with STI Engineering, theCounty should periodically reevaluate the contractto determine if the company is meeting theCounty’s intended methane gas conversion goals.

The County jurisdictions should consideradditional options for conversion technologiesthroughout the 20-year planning horizon. At thistime, there are a range of different conversiontechnologies in the early stages of developmentand acceptance in California. The County

jurisdictions believe that conversion technologieshave a place within the County’s solid wastemanagement system over the long-term shouldthese technologies become more cost-effectivethan they are today, and when these technologiesare shown to work for small to medium-sized waste management systems in California.



6-17

The County jurisdictions should consider arange of different conversion technologies in thefollowing areas:

Thermal chemical

Combustion Gasification Pyrolysis

Biochemical Anaerobic digestion Anaerobic digestion/composting Fermentation

Physiochemical

Biodiesel.

In evaluating each conversion technologyoption, the County jurisdictions should considerthe following factors:

AB 32 greenhouse gas reductions Community support Cost-benefits compared with traditional

disposal methods Level of technology development

(pilot phase, demonstration phase,or commercial phase)

Permitting Power generation/value of electricity

(e.g., for technologies generating electricity) Risks Site availability and size Waste diversion credits Waste stream flow control.

At this time, the County jurisdictions areclosely monitoring the following conversiontechnology efforts in California:

City of Los Angeles – considering an 800tons per day plant

County of Los Angeles – considering threeconversion technology plants ($200 million)

following impending closure of PuenteHills Landfill; three vendor finalists foralternative technologies

Salinas Valley Waste Management Authority – negotiating with two vendors.

As an example of one technology the County jurisdictions are interested in, County jurisdictionrecently reviewed a proposal from Organic EnergCorporation (OEC) to use a “landfill in a box”system whereby black bin post-source separated waste (i.e., mixed municipal solid waste) is sortedinto nineteen (19) constituent streams forprocessing. The processing includes both a wetstream (processed with anaerobic digestion) anddry stream. Each constituent stream is processedusing proven, available technologies. The OECbelieves that about two-thirds of the waste streamcan be diverted. Under its proposal, the OEC fullyfinances the facility costs and only requires thatthe jurisdiction furnish its waste. Currently thesize of the County’s West Slope waste stream(300 tons per day) is not sufficient to make thistechnology economically viable (the OEC targets1,000 to 1,500 tons per day); however, theCounty jurisdictions should closely monitor howthis technology matures over time and whether the“landfill in a box” concept becomes an option.

In December 2010, Waste Connectionsannounced that they will provide sortedmunicipal solid waste from the WERS facility inthe County to a planned conversion facility nearReno, Nevada. The proposed Sierra BioFuelsfacility will convert 90,000 tons of organic wastematerial into 10.5 million gallons of ethanol peryear. The facility is reportedly finalizing fundingsources, and plans to be operational in 2012.This facility could significantly impact solid waste management in the County, potentiallyutilizing a third, or approximately 100 tons perday, of material captured by Waste Connections.





To keep up with this rapidly evolving field,the County jurisdictions should update theconversion technologies portion of this Plan atfive (5) year intervals to ensure that the Planreflects the most current thinking on conversiontechnologies. Appendix G provides a moredetailed discussion of the current status ofconversion technologies. A key alternative toconsider, in the event that the WSJPA, or theCounty, pursues the EcoPark facility describedin Strategy 3.2, would be to co-locate futuregreen-fuel preparation facilities, such as shreddersand driers, at the EcoPark to facilitate futureconversion technologies at or near the EcoPark.


The County views use of these technologies as along-term waste management option, potentiallyfor use during the 2026, and beyond, timeframe.

Costs/Benefits

Conversion technology facilities can costtens of millions of dollars, depending on thetechnology. Operating costs are between $15

and $100 per ton, depending on the size of thefacility and the technology. Based on the size ofthe waste management system on the West Slope(300 tons per day), operating costs likely wouldbe on the higher end of this range, making useof alternative technologies prohibitive in theshort-term. For the County jurisdictions to usealternative technologies to manage its waste inthe future, the unit operating costs would needto decrease, substantially.

Conversion technologies have the benefit ofminimizing the potential impacts from landfilldisposal and minimizing the costs associated with consolidating and hauling materials froma transfer station to a landfill. Conversiontechnologies can also provide a revenue source(e.g., from sale of electricity).


One of the critical factors for use of conversiontechnologies today is the size, or scale, of the waste management system. For larger systems,

there are greater “economies of scale” for whichto spread the capital and operating costs of theseconversion technology facilities.

Other countries have demonstrated use ofconversion technologies for waste management.However, in many cases these conversiontechnology facilities have some form of subsidy tofacilitate their development and use (e.g., higherprices than market rates paid for electricitygenerated by the facility).

The County does not have such a large scalesystem, nor does it enjoy subsidies for thesefacilities, making current use of conversiontechnology facilities economically challenging. Where possible, the County jurisdictions shouldconsider combining the waste stream with other waste streams in the County (e.g., from the waste water treatment facility) and waste streams outsideof the County to increase economies of scale.

The WSJPA, or the County, may build a new West Slope MRF/transfer station at some point inthe next ten (10) years, if the WSJPA, or theCounty, determines this is the most cost effectivelong-term facility solution. This large capitaloutlay over the intermediate-term conflicts withfunding another similar-sized investment in a newconversion technology facility. Where possible, the WSJPA, or the County, should provide physicallocations on the West Slope EcoPark, or UnionMine Landfill, to place future scalable conversiontechnology systems should they become feasibleand cost-effective. The WSJPA, or the County,also should continuously explore public-privatepartnerships for alternative facility development tomitigate the future need for overlapping largecapital outlays.



6-19

Strategy 3.7 – Enhance CountyComposting Facility toManage Diverted Food

Waste and Other Organics


In February 2011, CalRecycle released aDraftProgram Environmental Impact Report (EIR) forStatewide Anaerobic Digester Facilities for theTreatment of Municipal Organic Solid Waste. This EIR is part of CalRecycle’s broader effort toreduce the amount of organics in the wastestreamby 50 percent by 2020, support AB 32 measuresrelated to the use of anaerobic digestion, andassist local governments and state agencies byproviding analyses that will assist in the eventualdevelopment of anaerobic digester facilities.

As identified in Strategy 2.12 and Strategy2.16, County jurisdictions should implementresidential and commercial food waste collectionprograms. To process food waste material, the WSJPA, or the County, should modify itsproposed Western El Dorado CountyComposting Facility to accept food waste inaddition to green waste for composting.

For this future upgrade to the proposedcomposting facility, the WSJPA, or the County,should evaluate the availability and cost-competitiveness of using in-vessel aerobic oranaerobic composting technologies versustraditional windrows technologies. In particular,the WSJPA, or the County, should keep apprisedof CalRecycle efforts related to anaerobic digesters.


The WSJPA, or the County, should considerupgrading the proposed Western El DoradoCounty Composting Facility during Phase 3.

Costs/Benefits

The capital costs to add upgrades to the Western El Dorado County Composting Facilityto accept food waste are estimated at $1 to $3

million. Offsetting the costs, the County shouldminimize landfilling of foodwaste. The County would increase its diversion levels. The facility would allow the WSJPA, or the County, to createa high-quality, and rich, composting material,and potentially fuel, for use by County residentsand businesses.


Upgrading the Western El Dorado County

Composting Facility to accept food waste createssome challenges. Food waste generates offensiveodors and can attract vectors such as flies, birds,bears, or vermin. Food wastes have higher watercontent. Consequently, the WSJPA, or theCounty, should:

Revisit its CEQA documentation Resubmit its Solid Waste Facilities Permit

(Compostable Materials Handling Permit),including its Odor Impact Minimization

Plan (OIMP) Revisit Waste Discharge Requirements from

the regional water quality control board Revisit air quality permits Revisit NPDES permits.

Strategy 3.8 – Renovate South Lake Tahoe(SLT) Material RecoveryFacility and TransferStation to Accept Single

Stream RecyclablesDescription and Rationale

When the South Lake Tahoe (SLT) MaterialRecovery Facility (MRF) and Transfer Station was developed in 1995, and expanded starting in2002, South Lake Tahoe Refuse Company (STR)determined that a mixed waste or “dirty” MRF





was the most effective alternative for the SouthLake Tahoe market region. STR hasimplemented blue bag recycling at their currentfacility, and currently recovers approximately4,000 tons of recyclable materials per year fromtheir California operations (unincorporated andincorporated South Lake Tahoe). Within thePhase 3 time period, the County and STR mayconsider shifting to a single stream collectionsystem for recyclable materials, with carts.


During Phase 3, STR should evaluate thecurrent collection infrastructure, sortingtechnologies, material quality, and other relevantfactors and determine whether shifting to a cart-based single stream recycling would be moreeffective, and/or more economical.

After evaluating program economics, and basedon the extent of additional diversion potential,the County and STR may determine that singlestream recycling (with a cart) is feasible for someresidential or commercial customers, but not others(e.g., resort operations). The County and STR may

determine cart-based services are only economicallypractical using a long-term phased approach.

Costs/Benefits

There would be additional processing costs toshift to a single stream collection processing lineof approximately $2 to $5 million for a new sortline. Single stream recycling has been shown toresult in increased diversion as well as increasedquality of diverted materials as compared to

mixed waste processing.


The primary challenge related to this strategyis the cost of modifying the current MRF lineto handle single stream material. There wouldalso be expenses related to shifting to cart-based

collection. To the extent that these changes areimplemented to replace aging equipment, theseexpenses would be minimized.

D. Objective 4 – Provide Alternative Sources ofFunding for New Facilities,Programs and Services

Strategy 4.2 – Develop South Lake TahoeMRF/Transfer Station,

West Slope EcoPark andUnion Mine Landfill Fees


In addition to rate funding the new programsand services (described in Strategy 4.1), theCounty may develop or modify facilities, such asupdating the South Lake Tahoe MRF/TransferStation, developing a West Slope EcoPark, andre-opening Union Mine Landfill. Should theCounty (or private partners) undertake thesemajor infrastructure improvements, the Countyshould implement new tipping fees.

These tipping fees should fully reflect the costof service to manage materials from tipping atthe new facilities, to consolidation, and finallytransfer to the Union Mine Landfill (or otherlandfill), or for material other than refuse, toother markets and end users. The County shoulddevelop these fees for self-haul customers andfranchised customers.

Implementation Timeline

The South Lake Tahoe Basin WasteManagement Authority would establish a newSouth Lake Tahoe MRF/Transfer Station tippingfee when (and if) the facility is upgraded tohandle single stream recyclables.

The County should establish a Union MineLandfill tipping fee if (and when) the facility is







estimated 0.08 MW of electricity or 43,000 cubicfeet per day of landfill gas (LFG) could be generated.

Union Mine LFG is currently incinerated ina flare and microturbines. The microturbines

produce electricity used by the wastewatertreatment plant. The County currently contracts with Field Solutions to maintain the landfill gascollection system. If a contract is established with STI Engineering, STI would maintain theLFG collection system.

Implementation Timeline

The Union Mine Landfill is already set up tocollect landfill gas so this could be source of

revenue with a relatively minimal cost.

Costs/Benefits

The costs and benefits of increased methanegas collection would depend on the relevanteconomics at that time.

Likely additional revenues could offset powercosts for the neighboring County wastewatertreatment plant and potentially also the operatingcosts of the Union Mine Landfill.


There are no significant barriers formaximizing this revenue source.





Appendix A Background for El Dorado

County Population andWaste Projections 2010 to 2030This Appendix provides additional detail on the population projection methodology,

as well as waste projection data and results.

A. Population Projection MethodologyThe population projections provided in Tables 2-1 and A-1 are based on four data source

The 2010 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) El DoradoCounty Economic Forecast

SACOG Regional Analysis District population projections El Dorado Hills Community Services District population estimates and master

plan build-out California Department of Finance (DOF) population data for the county and

for South Lake Tahoe.

The projection methodology utilized several different approaches. As a startingpoint, the 2005 total county population is based on DOF actual population, with

regional population in 2005 based on SACOG and Tahoe Basin data. Total countypopulation in 2010 is also based on actual DOF population data.

Next, total county population growth is based on Caltrans projections for countypopulation through 2030. These data are based on a demographic model used by Caltranand prepared by the California Economic Forecast Project (CEFP). The CEFP hasprepared forecast data for Caltrans for planning purposes for the last ten years. Becausethe Caltrans data is more recent (2010), it takes the impact of the recession into account,and is more conservative than DOF or SACOG projections that date back to 2007.

The Caltrans data projects that by 2030 total county population will be 209,923.The projections utilize actual DOF county population data in 2005 and 2010, with2010 population at 182,019.

The overall county growth figures cannot be applied equally to each region of the countybecause some regions are expected to grow rapidly, and others to have minimal growth.The projections use three different approaches to project growth within each region.

1. For El Dorado Hills, the projection utilizes actual SACOG 2005 population of31,222, EDHCSD estimate of 36,000 in 2010, EDHCSD Master Plan estimate



Appendix A Background for El Dorado County Population and Waste Projections 2010 to 2030

A-2 El Dorado County Solid Waste Management Plan

of 60,000 for total build out (plus someadditional build out), and compoundannual growth rates (CAGR) calculatedfrom the SACOG and actual data. Theprojections apply the CAGR of 2.89percent from the period 2005 to 2010 toestimate population through 2017, andthen apply a slightly lower 2.0 percentCAGR from the SACOG data for theperiod from 2018 to 2030. This figureresults in a population of 57,344 for ElDorado Hills in 2030

2. For the South Lake Tahoe region, theprojections calculate an actual CAGR forthe ten years 2001 to 2010, using DOF datafor the City of South Lake Tahoe and applythat rate going forward. South Lake Tahoe’spopulation has been relatively stable overthe last few years, and is expected to grow

just slightly, going forward

3. For the Tahoe Basin Area, the projectionsdraw on Tahoe Basin data to estimate 2010population at 7,000, and use the SACOGgrowth rates for Mt. Aukum-Grizzly Flatto project growth

4. For the remaining six 1 regions, theprojections utilize the SACOG data todetermine each region’s share of countygrowth within the SACOG data for threetime periods covered in the SACOG data:(1) 2005 to 2013, (2) 2013 to 2018, and(3) 2018 to 2035. The projections thendetermine the amount of growth betweeneach of our projection years (2005 to2010, 2010 to 2015, etc.), subtracted outthe growth for the three pre-determinedregions (El Dorado Hills, Tahoe Basin

Area, and South Lake Tahoe), and thensplit the remaining growth between the sixregions based on the percentage share ofgrowth for the closest SACOG data. Forexample, between 2010 and 2015, the

1 For Cameron Park, which has an estimated current populationof “over 15,000”, and a master plan projection of 600 additionalunits, we compared a population projection using specific CPCSDcalculations to the method described here. The two methodsresulted in similar population projections for 2030, thus weutilized the same method as for the other five remaining regions.

amount of growth not accounted for bythe three pre-determined regions is 769.Greater Placerville is estimated to accountfor just under 16 percent of the growth inthat time period (using SACOG 2005 to2013 data), for a population increasebetween 2010 and 2015 of 123 (123 =15.98% × 769). The projections applythis method to each of the six regions toproject population in 2010, 2015, 2020,and 2030.

B. Waste Disposal and Diversion Waste disposal estimates for the County were

based on tons per person for the unincorporatedcounty,2 City of Placerville, and City of SouthLake Tahoe, calculated from the average ofCIWMB (now CalRecycle) waste disposal datadivided by DOF population data for 2004through 2008. The projections then multiply tonsper person by population estimates for each regionand are summed to determine total projected

waste disposal. Pounds per person per day at50 percent were calculated from CalRecycletargets, using these figures to calculate targets at60 percent and 75 percent diversion, and thendetermining waste generation at those levels basedon the estimated populations.

Table A-2, on page A-3, provides the poundsper person per day targets for each region for thethree diversion targets.Table A-3, on page A-3,provides the corresponding tons per person andtotal tons at disposed targets at 60 percentdiversion in 2015, and 75 percent diversion in2020 and beyond. Based on these estimates, allregions exceed the 50 percent diversionrequirement in 2010.

2 We determined a separate tons per person for the TahoeBasin Area based on unincorporated County exports, as only Tahoe Basin Area waste is exported out of state (to Nevada).



A-3

Table A-1El Dorado County Population Estimates By Region (2005 to 2030)

Region 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Growth2010 to 2020

Growth2020 to 2030

Northwest County 21,092 21,136 21,203 21,413 21,581 21,598 1.3% 0.9%

El Dorado Hills 31,222 36,000 41,511 47,042 51,938 57,344 30.7% 21.9%

Cameron Park 13,629 14,786 14,988 15,620 15,770 15,786 5.6% 1.1%

West Central County 40,635 43,025 43,402 44,582 45,462 45,553 3.6% 2.2%

Mt. Aukum-Grizzly Flat 13,950 13,993 13,999 14,017 14,268 14,294 0.2% 2.0%

Greater Placerville 18,415 18,818 18,941 19,326 19,852 19,906 2.7% 3.0%

El Dorado High Country 3,147 3,174 3,168 3,151 3,263 3,275 -0.7% 3.9%

Tahoe Basin Area 6,993 7,000 7,033 7,055 7,076 7,098 0.8% 0.6%

South Lake Tahoe 23,904 24,087 24,329 24,573 24,820 25,069 2.0% 2.0%

Total 172,987 182,019 188,574 196,779 204,030 209,923 8.1% 6.7%

Table A-2

Pounds per Person per Day Diversion Targets by El Dorado County RegionRegion Pounds per person

per day at 50%Pounds per person

per day at 60%Pounds per person

per day at 75%

Northwest County 5.3 4.2 2.7

El Dorado Hills 5.3 4.2 2.7

Cameron Park 5.3 4.2 2.7

West Central County 5.3 4.2 2.7

Mt. Aukum-Grizzly Flat 5.3 4.2 2.7

Greater Placerville 6.9 5.5 3.5

El Dorado High Country 5.3 4.2 2.7

Tahoe Basin Area 5.3 4.2 2.7

South Lake Tahoe 9.4 7.5 4.7

Table A-3Disposal Targets and Tons by El Dorado County Region (50% in 2010; 60% in 2015; and 75% 2020 and later)

RegionTons perpersonat 50%

Tons perperson at 60%

Tons perperson at 75%

2010@65%

2010@50%

2015@60%

2020@75%

2025@75%

2030@75%

Northwest County 0.97 0.77 0.49 14,044 20,443 16,251 10,550 10,632 10,641

El Dorado Hills 0.97 0.77 0.49 23,922 34,821 31,819 23,180 25,593 28,256

Cameron Park 0.97 0.77 0.49 9,826 14,302 11,488 7,697 7,771 7,779

West Central County 0.97 0.77 0.49 28,591 41,616 33,268 21,968 22,402 22,446

Mt. Aukum-Grizzly Flat 0.97 0.77 0.49 9,299 13,535 10,731 6,907 7,031 7,044Greater Placerville 1.26 1.00 0.64 11,068 23,697 19,012 12,345 12,681 12,715

El Dorado High Country 0.97 0.77 0.49 2,109 3,070 2,428 1,553 1,608 1,614

Tahoe Basin Area 0.97 0.77 0.49 7,378 6,771 5,391 3,476 3,487 3,498

South Lake Tahoe 1.72 1.37 0.86 33,484 41,321 33,300 21,078 21,289 21,503

Total 139,721 199,576 163,688 108,754 112,494 115,496





Table A-4Additional Diversion by Region to achieve 60%in 2015 and 75% in 2020 and beyond

Region 2015 2020 2025 2030

Northwest County 3,688 3,718 3,720

El Dorado Hills 8,103 8,946 9,878Cameron Park 2,690 2,716 2,719

West Central County 7,679 7,831 7,847

Mt. Aukum-Grizzly Flat 2,415 2,457 2,462

Greater Placerville

El DoradoHigh Country 542 562 564

Tahoe Basin Area 2,022 3,960 3,971 3,983

South Lake Tahoe 517 13,079 13,211 13,343

Total 2,539 42,157 43,413 44,517

Table A-4, above, estimates the additionaldiversion, by region, to meet the 60 percentand 75 percent diversion targets. Meeting a75 percent diversion target in 2020 will requirethat the County divert over 42,000 tons of waste,as compared to 2010.

Exhibit A-1, on the next page, providesdiversion summaries for the County overall, andvarious jurisdictions. These data are based onDOF population data for the City of Placerville,El Dorado Unincorporated, City of South LakeTahoe, and the total County. The El DoradoHills and Cameron Park per person data arebased on NewPoint Group population estimatesfor those regions. The disposal and diversion dataare based on CalRecycle data and diversion/disposal reports provided by El Dorado Disposaland South Tahoe Refuse Company from theMRF/Transfer Station facilities.

Exhibit A-1 provides actual green waste,C&D, and recycling diversion estimates for eachregion. These estimates, and the resulting percentdiversion, are lower than the 50 percent diversionmandate because they reflect actual physicalmaterials diverted at County facilities. Thesefacility diversion rates do not incorporate wastereduction activities. The County’s equivalentdiversion rate percentage, based on per capita

waste generation, is higher.



A-5

Exhibit A-1El Dorado County Diversion Summaries (2007 to 2009, in tons) Page 1 of 2

Total County City of South Lake Tahoe

Category 2007 2008 2009 Category 2007 2008 2009

Green Waste 15,753 16,226 15,175 Green Waste – – –

C&D 43,066 39,550 32,507 C&D 30,097 22,792 14,218

Recycling 23,033 22,914 21,782 Recycling 3,237 3,530 3,235

Total MaterialDiversion 81,852 78,690 69,464 Total Material

Diversion 33,334 26,322 17,453

Population 177,712 179,373 180,713 Population 23,814 23,919 23,966

Diversion/person 0.46 0.44 0.38 Diversion/person 1.40 1.10 0.73

GW/person 0.09 0.09 0.08 GW/person – – –

C&D/person 0.24 0.22 0.18 C&D/person 1.26 0.95 0.59

Recycling/person 0.13 0.13 0.12 Recycling/person 0.14 0.15 0.13

Disposal 162,573 173,725 144,083* Disposal 48,021 46,767 37,923

Total Actual 244,425 252,415 213,547 Total Actual 81,355 73,089 55,376

% Material Diversion 33% 31% 33% % Material Diversion 41% 36% 32%

Disposal tons/person 0.91 0.97 0.80 Disposal tons/person 2.02 1.96 1.58

* 2009 disposal figure is preliminary

El Dorado Hills (using population estimates)Unincorporated County(Including El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park)


Green Waste 6,703 5,766 4,799 Green Waste 15,067 15,464 13,656

C&D 2,132 2,542 1,997 C&D 12,368 15,208 15,943Recycling 6,866 7,123 4,397 Recycling 18,698 18,063 15,942


Diversion 46,133 48,735 45,541



GW/person 0.20 0.17 0.14 GW/person 0.10 0.11 0.09



Disposal 18,685 17,174 12,623 Disposal 106,454 117,307 100,150








Exhibit A-1El Dorado County Diversion Summaries (2007 to 2009, in tons) (continued) Page 2 of 2

Cameron Park (using population estimates)Unincorporated County(Excluding El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park)


Green Waste 1,750 1,870 2,304 Green Waste 6,614 6,024 6,552

C&D 919 1,126 1,161 C&D 9,318 11,540 12,745

Recycling 3,144 2,649 2,548 Recycling 8,697 8,291 8,997


Diversion 24,629 25,855 28,294



GW/person 0.12 0.12 0.15 GW/person 0.07 0.06 0.07



Disposal 15,485 15,743 10,661 Disposal 72,284 84,390 76,866




City of Placerville

Category 2007 2008 2009

Green Waste 686 763 1,529

C&D 600 1,550 2,345

Recycling 1,098 1,321 2,605Total MaterialDiversion 2,384 3,634 6,479

Population 10,281 10,349 10,402

Diversion/person 0.23 0.35 0.62

GW/person 0.07 0.07 0.15

C&D/person 0.06 0.15 0.23

Recycling/person 0.11 0.13 0.25

Disposal 8,098 9,651 6,010

Total Actual 10,482 13,285 12,489

% Material Diversion 23% 27% 52%

Disposal tons/person 0.79 0.93 0.58

Sources: DOF for population data for City of Placerville, El Dorado Unincorporated, City of South Lake Tahoe, and County. NPG Estimates forCameron Park and El Dorado Hills. El Dorado Disposal Service MRF Diversion Reports and South Lake Tahoe Refuse Company Diversionby Material Reports for diversion data. CalRecycle Disposal by Jurisdiction Reports for disposal for unincorporated El Dorado County,Placerville, and City of South Lake Tahoe, and El Dorado Disposal Service MRF Diversion Reports for Cameron Park and El Dorado Hills.



Appendix B

Future West Slope EcoParkFacility Size and Conceptual Layout



Appendix B Future West Slope EcoPark

Facility Size andConceptual LayoutTable B-1, on page B-2, provides a square footage breakdown for the proposed

EcoPark facilities and ancillary amenities. The total facility area requirement for theMRF/Transfer Station1 is 80,000 square feet (sq. ft.), which includes, but is not limitedto, an 8,300 sq. ft. MSW tipping area, a 2,500 sq. ft. tipping area for recyclables, and aself-haul tipping area with 15 stalls totaling approximately 27,000 sq ft. The facility arrequirement for the Construction and Demolition (C&D) facility is 23,000 sq. ft.,

which includes a 500 sq. ft. tipping area. The facility area requirement for thegreen/wood material chipping and grinding operation is 30,000 sq. ft. The conceptualplan also includes flexibility in planning for additional services in the future.

The EcoPark site needs to be at least 15 acres to accommodate all of the featuresdescribed in Strategy 3.2.Figure B-1, on page B-3, provides a draft conceptual sitelayout with space for circulation, operations maneuverability, and potential expansion.The primary purpose of this conceptual plan layout is to determine the amount ofland required for the EcoPark. Figure B-1 represents a conceptual scenario for use inhigh-level budgeting and planning purposes. Further design would be necessary tofinalize the site layout once additional details, and a suitable site, are available.

1 The EcoPark would include a “clean” MRF.



Appendix B Future West Slope EcoPark Facility Size and Conceptual Layout

B-2 El Dorado County Solid Waste Management Plan

Table B-1Western El Dorado CountyFuture West Slope EcoPark RequirementsFacility Area Requirements

Site Acreage Needed 15 Acres

Material Tons Per Day Sq. Ft.

Tipping Areas MSW 500 8,300

Greenwaste 150 5,500

Recyclables 200 2,500

C&D 100 500

Area Sq. Ft.

EcoPark Facility Areas Circulation and Manueverability 150,000

Future Conversion Technologies 150,000

Truck/Trailer Maintenance and Parking 90,000Material Recovery Facility / Transfer Station 80,000

Employee and Visitor Parking 60,000

Green Material Chipping and Grinding Operation 30,000

Stormwater Detention 30,000

C&D Resource Recovery Facility 23,000

Re-Use Area 21,000

Buy Back Center / HHW 10,000

Office / Administration Building 5,000

Area Scales (Two Lanes) 4,000

Total Facility Areas Sq. Ft. 653,000

Total Facility Areas Acreage 15.0



B-3

Figure B-1Preliminary Site Layout



Appendix B Future West Slope EcoPark Facility Size and Conceptual Layout

B-4 El Dorado County Solid Waste Management Plan




Appendix C

Clean Versus DirtyMaterial Recovery Facilities



Appendix C Clean Versus Dirty

Materials Recovery Facilities A. Overview of Clean Versus Dirty Materials Recovery Facilities

Material Recycling Facilities (MRFs) are facilities where waste is deposited, sorted,and separated. MRFs sort and separate materials to create products that meet definedspecifications, which are then marketed. This is achieved, particularly in a clean MRF,by sorting the collected material into specific waste streams and removing contaminantmaterials. MRFs are classified as either “clean MRFs,” which process source-separatedmaterial to recover recyclables, or “dirty MRFs,” which recover recyclable materials,and/or a compostable fraction from unsorted municipal solid waste (MSW).

A “clean MRF” accepts commingled recyclables that have already been separated atthe source from MSW. Clean MRF configurations vary depending on the incomingflow levels, the sizing requirements, and degree of mechanical or manual processesdesired. The most common clean MRF is a “single stream” clean MRF, where all ofthe mixed recyclables are processed together through a series of separation steps. A“dual stream” MRF processes source-separated recyclables using different stepsdepending on the type of materials delivered (i.e., in the case where containers aresource-separated from fiber materials).1

Generally, a clean MRF can recover more than 90 percent of the incoming recyclabl

material. Differences in clean MRF recovery percentages generally are driven by citizeparticipation levels and the capabilities of the MRF separation processes. Residuals, orthe non-recyclable materials, remaining from a clean MRF process are typicallytransferred to a landfill for disposal.

A “dirty MRF” processes a mixed, non source-separated, municipal solid wastestream (called residual waste or “black bin” or “black bag” waste). A dirty MRFseparates recyclable materials from the mixed MSW stream using manual andmechanical sorting techniques.2 A dirty MRF can recover up to 45 percent of theincoming MSW material. The remaining residuals from the dirty MRF process aretypically transferred to a landfill for disposal.

1 Dual stream systems require customers to separate recyclable materials into more than one container or atwo-sided container.

2 Sorted recyclable materials may undergo further processing to meet end user technical specifications.



Appendix C Clean Versus Dirty Materials Recovery Facilities

C-2 El Dorado County Solid Waste Management Plan

B. Clean MRF and Dirty MRFStrengths and Weaknesses

A dirty MRF is theoretically capable of higherrecovery rates than a clean MRF, since the dirty

MRF ensures that 100 percent of the wastestream is subject to sorting. In some cases, thedirty MRF can target more materials for recoverythan may be accommodated from sorting at thesource. A dirty MRF process is, however, morelabor-intensive than a clean MRF. Strengths and weaknesses of both clean and dirty MRFs areprovided in Table C-1, on the next page.

Materials processed through a clean MRFusually weigh between 50 and 100 pounds per

cubic meter. Alternatively, materials processedthrough a dirty MRF usually weigh about 350pounds per cubic meter. Consequently, dirty andclean MRF weigh designs will vary significantly.

C. Community Decision MakingRegarding Clean Versus DirtyMaterials Recovery Facility

The County faces an important decision regarding

the type of MRF it uses for the EcoPark – either aclean or dirty MRF. On the West Slope, the Countyhas a residential collection system characterized bycollection of source-separated recyclables from manyof its residents in carts or bags. There also are someresidents who may subscribe to collection services,but do not yet use the curbside recycling services orself haul their MSW. The County has invested in aninfrastructure oriented toward collection of source-separated recyclables.

As a result, the County currently has needs forboth clean MRF and dirty MRF processingcapabilities. The County could benefit from a cleanMRF that separates the source-separated residentialcurbside recycling materials and source-separatedcommercial sector materials. The County alsocould benefit from a dirty MRF that separatesrecyclables from the MSW waste stream.

Currently, the WERS only has dirty MRFcapabilities, due to equipment and volume ofmaterial. Source-separated recyclable materialsare transferred to Benicia, California forprocessing. Based on the limitations of thecurrent facility, the County may decide that itsbest investment for the new EcoPark is in a cleanMRF, under the assumption that there will be agrowing number of residents that source-separaterecyclable materials. The County may not wantto be limited by a dirty MRF alone, at the newEcoPark, as this option will not improve thesorting capabilities beyond those available underthe current system.

In comparing the diversion potential for aclean MRF versus a dirty MRF, there is empiricaldata to suggest that a dirty MRF has a maximumdiversion potential of approximately 45 percentfrom the residential MSW stream for a givencommunity.3 Alternatively, the diversionpotential for a source-separated curbside programcan range between 40 and 60 percent dependingon the community. 4 Given that the potentialdiversion rates are higher for a high performingsource-separated program combined with a cleanMRF, and the marketability of the material isgreater due to the higher quality product, there isan argument that the County should employ aclean MRF over a dirty MRF.

The County also may consider a hybridversion of the MRF, which employs both cleanand dirty MRF sorting capabilities. In thisoption, during the period of time when theCounty transitions toward a greater emphasis ona source-separated collection system, the County

3 The South Tahoe Refuse dirty MRF currently divertsapproximately 38 percent from the total waste streamentering the facility (including residential, commercial, andself-haul materials).

4 In a 2006 survey of sixteen (16) Alameda County jurisdictions,the residential diversion rate for a source-separated curbsiderecycling program ranged from 40 to 64 percent, andaveraged 51 percent.



C-3

Table C-1Strengths and Weaknesses ofClean and Dirty Materials Recovery Facilities

Strengths and Weaknesses of Clean MRFs

Strengths Weaknesses

1. Relatively high material processing efficiencies 1. Exposure to commodity market variability2. Recyclables separated generally are high quality 2. Reliant on residential and commercial customers to participate

in the program and separate the materials

3. Potential for significant revenues from sale of materials 3. Dependent on the efficiency and reliability of mechanicalequipment

4. Significant contributor toward meeting higherrecycling goals

4. Requires storage and security of separated recyclable materials

5. Materials collected from both residential curbsidecollection and the commercial sector

5. Potential dust emissions and worker safety and health issues

6. Use of proven technology 6. Requires an additional collection truck for each route to collectsource separated materials

Strengths and Weaknesses of Dirty MRF

Strengths Weaknesses

1. Part of an integrated system that can recover materialsvalue out of a residual waste stream

1. Lower quality recyclables can limit market value (oftenrecyclables have beenin contact with other materials,particularly food scraps)

2. Generally lower capital costs compared to clean MRFs 2. Without sufficient separation, much of the incoming materialstream ultimately must be landfilled

3. Reduces need to source separate recyclable materials 3. Where materials are divided into other commingled materialstreams, the facility relies on other waste management and/orsorting operations (thus reducing overall value)

4. Use of a proven technology 4. Potential dust emissions, odor problems, and worker safety

and health issues5. Eliminates separate collection of source separated

materials (routes, trucks, and personnel)

6. Recovery/recycling rate determined by sorting effortat the MRF, rather than by public participation

can continue to process its MSW stream using adirty MRF sort line. Additionally, the County will have the ability to process source-separated

recycled materials using the clean MRF sort line. A hybrid clean and dirty MRF is not common

in California. Usually, California communitiesselect either a clean or dirty MRF that aligns withtheir collection system design. However, due tothe County’s urban/rural mix, the variedsubscriber levels, large self haul volumes, and the

non-mandatory collection service, the Countymay benefit from such a hybrid MRF design.

Finally, the County also may consider twoseparate MRF sort lines for the EcoPark, one cleanMRF and one dirty MRF. This alternative wouldbe significantly more expensive, but would affordthe County the “best of both worlds.” Dual linesalso would provide the County with a degree ofMRF sort line redundancy should one of the sortlines break down or require maintenance.



Appendix C Clean Versus Dirty Materials Recovery Facilities

C-4 El Dorado County Solid Waste Management Plan




Appendix D

EcoPark Material ProcessingOperations and Facility Features



Appendix D EcoPark Material Processing

Operations and Facility FeaturesThis appendix provides an overview of EcoPark operations, design elements, and

other facility characteristics. This appendix is organized as follows:

A. Transfer stationB. Materials recovery facility (MRF)C. Green/wood material chipping and grinding operationD. Construction and demolition (C&D) facilityE. ReUse areaF. Household hazardous waste (HHW) drop off locationG. Buy back facilityH. Self haul operationsI. Future conversion technologies J. On-site education centerK. Ancillary facilitiesL. Parking M. CirculationN. RoadsO. SignageP. Odor managementQ. Noise managementR. Aesthetics and sustainabilityS. ArchitectureT. LEED designationU. LandscapingV. Permitting and Approvals.

A. Transfer Station

The EcoPark will serve as a transfer station, providing the flexibility to consolidatematerials from smaller collection trucks into higher capacity transfer trailers. Thismaterials consolidation capability will allow the County to conserve energy andminimize the number of vehicle trips made to other facilities.

County franchise hauler(s) will deliver materials (i.e., refuse or recyclables) to theEcoPark and tip the materials onto a designated tipping area. Once unloaded, the EcoPoperator will push the materials to a transfer area, through openings in the floor, and in



Appendix D EcoPark Material Processing Operations and Facility Features

D-2 El Dorado County Solid Waste Management Plan

the top of transfer trailers parked below. Onceconsolidated, the EcoPark operator will arrangeto transfer the waste to a landfill or therecyclables to a processing facility (e.g., in cases

where the recyclable materials are not processedon the MRF sort line).1

B. Material Recovery Facility (MRF)The EcoPark will have a material recovery

facility (MRF) sort line. The EcoPark operator will use the MRF sort line to separate incoming“source separated” recyclables into variousmaterial types (called a “clean MRF”).Depending on the County’s preference, the MRF

sort line also may have the capability to recoverrecyclables from mixed municipal solid waste(MSW). This functionality is known as a “dirtyMRF.” See Appendix C for a discussion of thepros and cons of a clean versus dirty MRF.

The clean MRF sort line will combine handsorting with the following automated equipment:

Air Classification Air Knives

Conveyors Disk Screens Eddy Currents Hand Sorting Magnetism Screens Trommel Screens Vertical Air Clarifiers.

Once separated, the EcoPark operator will balerecyclable materials and arrange to transportthem to a recyclable processing facility.

1 For example, when the MRF sort line is being repaired.

C. Green/Wood Material Chippingand Grinding Operation

Recycling green and wood material representsa sustainable practice that serves to divert waste

from landfills. The EcoPark operator will chip,grind, and compost green and wood materials.The EcoPark operator will use a Bobcat loader toload the green and wood materials into a tubgrinder. Once chipped and ground, the EcoParkoperator will stockpile the green and woodmaterials prior to transfer. The EcoPark operator

will arrange to transfer the chipped/groundmaterial to a composting facility or finaldestination facility (e.g., as fuel for a co-generation facility or as alternative daily cover(ADC) for a landfill). The EcoPark will processthe following green and wood material types:

Bark Brush Leaves Logs Lumber (clean, not painted) Pallets

Shipping containers Stumps Tree trimmings Wood construction and demolition material.

D. Construction and Demolition(C&D) Facility

Approximately 29 percent of the waste generated

in the County is Construction and Demolition(C&D) debris. C&D material can be divertedeither through recycling, repurposing, andreprocessing. Using a C&D sort line, the EcoParkoperator will sort C&D materials generated by theconstruction industry. The EcoPark operator willuse a combination of automated equipment, andmanual labor, to separate C&D materials into



D-3

materials for eventual re-use. C&D materialsseparated will include:

Concrete Wood

Greenwaste Drywall Metals Inerts Other recyclables.

A C&D sort line at the EcoPark is consistent with West County C&D policies in effect. OnSeptember 30, 2003, the Construction and

Demolition (C&D) Debris Recycling Ordinancetook effect in El Dorado County. This Ordinancerequires individuals or businesses demolishing orconstructing projects, with structure footprintsexceeding 5,000 square feet in area, to recycle atleast fifty (50) percent of the C&D debris created.Prior to issuing a permit, the County requires thepermit applicant to submit a debris recyclingacknowledgment (DRA).

E. ReUse AreaThe EcoPark will include a reuse area, consisting

of open air compounds with bunkers and roll-offcontainers positioned around the periphery. Users will drive to the EcoPark with their materials andplace them in the proper bunkers or containers.Reused materials may include:

Bulk metals Cardboard

Furniture Greenwaste Inerts (concrete, asphalt) Lumber White goods (large appliances).

In conjunction with the chipping and grindingoperation, County users also can pick up mulchor compost for their landscaping needs. Reusefacilities provide a valuable public service;however, they are only a small contributor ofmaterial diversion as compared to other diversionprograms and facilities.

F. Household Hazardous Waste(HHW) Drop-Off Location

The EcoPark will include a householdhazardous waste collection (HHWC) center.The HHWC will be permitted by the State ofCalifornia, Department of Toxic Substance

Control (DTSC). The HHWC will be locatedadjacent to the scale house, so the scale houseattendant can monitor the operation.

The HHWC will accept: paints, pesticides,automotive fluids, pool chemicals, home generatedsharps, electronic waste (e.g., computers,televisions, and stereos) and universal waste (e.g.,fluorescent lights, batteries, and aerosol cans). TheEcoPark will accept HHW from county residents“free of charge.” The EcoPark will also accepthazardous wastes from commercial ConditionallyExempt Small Quantity Generators at fee rates setby the County Board of Supervisors.

Household and other hazardous wastessegregated from incoming wastes through theEcoPark’s load checking program, or found at otheEcoPark operations, which the EcoPark operatorcannot return to the transporter, will be takendirectly to the HHWC for temporary storage. TheEcoPark operator also will store hazardous wastegenerated by on-site equipment maintenanceactivities (i.e., changing lubricating oils) at theHHWC until transported off-site for disposal.









prohibited materials, and cautions. Signs will belarge enough so that vehicle drivers entering thesite can see them. Entry signs will provide thefollowing information:

Acceptable materials Circulation patterns Emergency telephone numbers Facility operating hours Non-acceptable materials Recyclable buy-back prices Tipping fees.

The EcoPark also will post speed limits, the

location of tipping and parking areas, and thedirection of traffic flow.

P. Odor ManagementThe EcoPark will employ odor control

measures. Odor control measures will includeprocessing of waste (putrescible municipal solid

waste and recyclables) within the enclosedprocessing building. The EcoPark operator willfurther control odor with rapid processing andtransportation of materials after unloading.

The EcoPark construction will attempt to haveall facilities located in completely enclosedstructures that provide odor, dust, and littercontrol. The EcoPark operator will control odors

within the building using good housekeepingmethods. EcoPark odor control measures willinclude a misting system at roof exhaust ports,

3

regular inspections, odor hotlines, and

redirection of loads that may create off-site odornuisances. EcoPark operations will be conductedso that no residuals, or MSW, are retained on-sitefor more than forty eight (48) hours.

3 Misters spray a safe and nontoxic odor-neutralizing solutionthat chemically reduces odors.

The EcoPark operator will use the followingadditional mitigation measure to minimize airquality impacts:

Design ventilation systems toaccommodate installation of air scrubbers

Place air intake louvers at the opposite endof the building from exhaust fans

Set traffic patterns to eliminate windtunnel effects when truck doors open.

Q. Noise ManagementThe EcoPark will have noise control measures.

Most material handling and transfer operations will be conducted within the buildings. EcoParkfacilities will be completely enclosed, thereby,significantly reducing off-site noise. The EcoParkoperator will restrict excessive noise outside ofbuildings. Where possible, on-site vehicles will bemuffled and operating equipment soundproofed.

The EcoPark will include berms and walls inlandscaped areas around the site to further reducenoise. The EcoPark may consider use of high-speed roll-up doors to keep the facility enclosed

as much as possible. EcoPark workers will haveear protection, where necessary.

R. Aesthetics and SustainabilityTo achieve community acceptance of a waste

management facility, the EcoPark designer willpay close attention to aesthetics and overallappearance. The EcoPark will blend into itssurroundings in an innovative and sustainable

way. Utilizing cutting-edge architectural, green-technologies, and native landscaping processes,the EcoPark will be designed to obtain a “greenbuilding” designation.



D-7

S. ArchitectureThe EcoPark will involve the community in

designing the exterior appearance of the facility.The EcoPark will have a pleasing façade. The

EcoPark will be designed such that individualsdriving by the facility will not hear, smell, or seethe operations from the street. The buildings willbe designed to look like an industrial/commercialbuilding that blends into its surroundings.

T. LEED DesignationThe EcoPark will incorporate green design

features endorsed by the U.S. Green BuildingCouncil (USGBC). The facility design willincorporate feasible design features required toobtain Leadership in Energy and EnvironmentalDesign (LEED) certification. The EcoPark willuse recycled materials throughout the building.For example, the EcoPark will increase energyefficiency through use of translucent panels andskylights. The EcoPark will increase waterefficiency using low flow devices and possibly byre-circulating grey-water to use for cleaning thetipping floor and other areas of the facility.

U. LandscapingLandscaping serves multiple purposes by

providing a screen to reduce visual and noiseimpacts from facility traffic. The EcoPark will useextensive landscaping to enhance the overallappearance of the site. The EcoPark also willhave earthen berms to mitigate visual impacts.

The EcoPark will design site contours andvegetation to collect direct storm water runoff indetention areas. Where possible, the EcoPark willuse wetland plants (e.g. grasses, bamboo) andinert soils (e.g., sand and silt) to reducecontaminates and suspended particles in runoff water before they are discharged.

V. EcoPark Permittingand Approvals

In order to operate the Eco Park facility in theState of California, the project proponent must

obtain various permits from local and stateagencies with jurisdiction over the handling anddisposal of non-hazardous solid waste. Solid

waste facilities must have a Solid Waste FacilitiesPermit (SWFP) issued by the local enforcementagency (LEA), and concurred on by theCalifornia Department of Resources Recyclingand Recovery (CalRecycle). The EcoParkoperator will have to provide a full SWFP thataccurately reflects the various material handlingoperations at the facility.

The following list includes responsible agencies with jurisdiction over the proposed EcoPark, and ivarious ancillary facilities. The list identifies permrequired to operate the facility in accordance withthe California Code of Regulations, Title 14 (14CCR), Sections 18221.6 and 18223.5:

County of El Dorado DevelopmentServices Department

Conditional Use Permit

California Environmental Quality Act Initial Study Environmental Impact Report

Building/Occupancy Permits Placer County Health and Human Services,

Department of Environmental Health(LEA)/ California Department of ResourcesRecycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)

Solid Waste Facilities Permit

Non-Disposal Facility Element(NDFE) amendment concurrence

Central Valley Regional Water QualityControl Board

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Monitoring Plan





El Dorado County Air QualityManagement District

Permits to Operate (e.g., facilityequipment with combustion engines)

California Environmental Protection Agency,Department of Toxic Substances Control

Hazardous Waste Generator Permit El Dorado County Solid Waste Advisory Committee

NDFE review and approval

El Dorado County Board of Supervisors NDFE amendment formalapproval/adoption and incorporationin the Countywide Integrated WasteManagement Plan

El Dorado County Fire District.

The timeframe for obtaining these permitsvaries from site to site but is expected to rangefrom three (3) to five (5) years.



Appendix E

Alternative Potential Locationsfor a West Slope EcoPark



Appendix E Alternative Potential Locations

for a West Slope EcoParkThis appendix presents results of a siting analysis used to assess locations for a new

EcoPark on the Western Slope of the County. This appendix describes a two-stepprocess used to identify potential EcoPark sites. The first step was to short-listproperty parcels using “primary” site selection criteria intended to eliminate parcelsnot meeting basic minimum requirements. Once a short list was developed, the nextstep was to rank sites using “secondary” site selection criteria, including various sitedevelopment and operational factors. Following this two-step process, sites weregrouped into three (3) general categories:

Highly compatible with County objectives Very compatible with County objectives Moderately compatible with County objectives.

The primary site selection criteria included population center of mass, vacantparcels, zoning and land use, parcel size, proximity to rivers and creeks, proximity tofault lines, and proximity to U.S. Highway 50. The secondary site selection criteriaincluded development concerns, land use compatibility, transportation impacts,biological impacts, and economics.

Source data used in this analysis included Geographical Information Systems (GIS),census, Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) data, and Cal-Atlasgeospatial clearinghouse data.

A. Primary Site Selection CriteriaBelow are the criteria and evaluation methods used for primary site selection. Excep

where noted, primary site selection criteria were applied absolutely, meaning sites thatdid not meet the primary criteria did not advance to the secondary site selection analys

Primary site selection criteria included:

Central location Vacant and industrial Within industrial use and industrial zoning Site acreage greater than 15 acres Away from rivers and creeks A minimum of 200 feet away from Holocene fault Five miles from U.S. Highway 50



Appendix E Alternative Potential Locations for a West Slope EcoPark

E-2 El Dorado County Solid Waste Management Plan

1. Central location

The site should be located near the center ofthe West Slope population and/or areas withhigh projected growth.

Using 2000 Census block data, provided bythe U.S. Census Bureau, a populationdistribution map was developed (seeFigure E-1,

on page E-5).1 Graduated colors symbolizepopulated areas with red the most populated andyellow the least populated. Figure E-1 also showsa 10 mile radius around the West County’spopulation center of mass.

The West Central County region is currentlythe most populated area in the County. The

current population is approximately 43,000 andis projected to grow to approximately 46,000by 2030. Northwest County, and GreaterPlacerville, are the next two most populated West County regions, each projected to growto approximately 21,000.

Although the El Dorado Hills area was outsidethe center of mass, it remained through theprimary analysis due to its large population and highprojected growth. El Dorado Hills has the greatestprojected growth rate, at approximately 31 percentover the next ten years, slowing somewhat toapproximately 22 percent between 2020 and 2030.El Dorado Hills’ population is projected to growfrom 31,222 to approximately 57,000 in 2030. ElDorado Hills also has a relatively high diversion rate.

2. Vacant and industrial

The site should be a vacant parcel and one

designated for industrial use. From parcel dataprovided by the County, 247 vacant andindustrial parcels were indentified (seeFigure E-2, on page E-7).2

1 The latest available data provided in the Cal-Atlas.2 The County provided a shape file called parcel_data.shp.

Parcel data contained attributes under USECDTYPE and

3. Within industrial use andindustrial zoning

The site should be within the County’s current2004 General Plan Industrial Use designation.

Additionally, the site also should be within anIndustrial zoned area of the County’s currentZoning Ordinance. Using land use and zoningdata provided by the County, parcels completely

within an industrial use/zoning designation forboth the General Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance,

were identified. This analysis narrowed the numberof parcels to 40 (seeFigure E-3, on page E-9).

4. Site greater than 15 acres

The site should be at least 15 acres toaccommodate the requirements identified in

Appendix B and the conceptual size requirementsdefined in Table B-1.

Parcels were analyzed to identify those greaterthan 5 acres. Parcels greater than 5 acres were thenreviewed to identify combinations of parcels thatcould provide the required 15 acre site acreage.This analysis identified 26 potential parcels.

5. Away from rivers and creeks

The site should not be located within thelimits of an existing river or creek (as identifiedby the USGS Blue Line data).

Using a hydrology shape file, provided byCAL-Atlas, rivers and creeks were overlaid on theremaining 26 parcels. Six parcels were eliminateddue to either a river or creek bisecting a parcel, orbecause they did not meet the minimum acreagerequirements after a parcel was removed due to ariver or creek (isolated parcels less than 15 acres

were removed). This process identified 20potential parcels.

USECDCLASS that were queried to identify vacant parcelswith industrial use designation.










Figure E-1Population Density








Figure E-2Vacant Industrial Land Parcels








Figure E-3Parcels Within General Plan & Zoning Industrial Use Designation















E-13

Table E-1El Dorado County SWMPPrimary Site Selection AnalysisSites Selected

The secondary site selection criteria used twoscoring methods to evaluate each of the eight (8)short-listed sites. Each criterion was weightedequally. Each criterion was evaluating using oneof two scoring methods:

1. Sites meeting specific criterion receivedthe maximum score of “3” and sites notmeeting the criterion receive theminimum score of “1”; or

2. Weighing relative differences among thesites within a criterion. Scoring values forrelative differences were:a. Favorable – 3 pointsb. Satisfactory – 2 pointsc. Poor – 1 point.

A description of the secondary site selection isprovided below.

1. Secondary Site Selection Analyses

1.1. Land Use Compatibility

Adjacent Land Use

The proposed EcoPark should be sited in an are with compatible land uses. Sites located adjacentto land zoned for residential uses or otherincompatible zones were considered unsatisfactory4

Sites surrounded by commercial and industrial lan with potential buffer zones were ranked (3), sites with adjacent land use that contained limited

4 There are design alternatives that can alleviate land useconflicts. These include fully enclosing EcoPark operationsand providing adequate buffer property to mitigate impacts.However, these alternative design alternatives mustevaluated on a case-by-case basis and were beyond thescope of this site selection process.





residential land use were ranked (2), and sitessurrounded by residential zoning were ranked (1).

Physical Configuration of Site

The EcoPark site should accommodate access,circulation, and efficient site use. Long and narrowor oddly shaped sites were considered poor sites, while square-shaped sites were favorable. Sites with a rectangular shape, maximum circulationpotential, and the potential to house future newtechnologies were ranked (3), sites with morelimited space, but able to accommodate facilityrequirements and circulation were ranked (2), andodd-shaped sites were ranked (1).

Site AccessThe site should have easy access for commercial

users and self-haulers. A review of the Countycirculation element was used to rank site accessfor each site. Sites that were easily accessed wereranked (3), sites with limited and/or indirectpoints of access were ranked (2), and sites farremoved from local roads and/or with a significantelevation differential were ranked (1).

Room for Future ExpansionSites that had 20 or more usable acres were

ranked (3), sites with 15 to 19 usable acres wereranked (2), and sites with less than 15 usableacres were ranked (1).5

1.2. Development Concerns

Geology for Buildability

Some areas in the County are geologically

underlain by layers of soft lime and limestoneformations. These formations can create smallsinkholes when exposed to water. The existing MRFis located on a former lime quarry and has a historyof structural problems with the MRF foundation.

5 Sites larger than 20 acres were considered available forfuture expansion.

Sites not on ground with lime were consideredfavorable. Sites with no known geologicalchallenges were ranked (3), and sites with knowngeological challenges were ranked (1).

Proximity to Floodplains andSurface Waters

The site should not be located in FEMA floodzones, or have surface water bodies on theproperty. Sites located away from floodplainsand surface waters were considered favorable.Sites outside of the 100 year flood plane wereranked (3), and sites that were identified near a100 year flood plain, or adjacent to surface

waters, were ranked (1).

Utility Access

Locations with utility access were consideredmore favorable than sites without easy utilityaccess. Developing or extending utilities to apotential EcoPark site could be costly and timeconsuming. Sites near other developments, andthose determined to have utilities in the generalarea (based on visual inspection), were ranked(3), sites with some utility capabilities but not all

(i.e. water, sewer, power) were ranked (2), andsites removed from existing development withlimited utilities in the area were ranked (1).

Fire Protection

Potential EcoPark sites should be located in anarea with good fire protection. Sites identified ina moderate fire hazard area were ranked (3), sitesin a high hazard area were ranked (2), and sites ina very high hazard area were ranked (1).

1.3. Transportation Impacts

Secondary Site Access

Potential EcoPark sites with more than oneroad, or access point, to the site are preferred.Secondary site access is important for fire safetyand circulation. Sites with multiple access



E-15

points, or significant frontage where thesecondary access point does not have thepotential to conflict with the primary access wereranked (3), sites with challenging access (i.e.,elevation or indirect roadways) but where asecondary access point could be created wereranked (2), and sites where a secondary accesspoint was not available ranked (1).

Local Road Conditions

Local roads that would be used to access theEcoPark site should be designed to accommodatethe proposed EcoPark traffic. A preferable site would not require substantial modifications orimprovements to local road conditions and

would meet the following four (4) criteria:1. Two, 12 foot wide lanes and shoulders

2. Alignment capable of handling35 mph traffic

3. A pavement section that can handletruck traffic

4. On a public road.

Sites with local roads that meet at least threeof the criteria noted above were ranked (3), sites where local roads only met two of the criteriaabove and may require improvements wereranked (2), and sites only meeting one of thecriteria items above were ranked (1).

Proximity to Major Arterials

Sites located in close proximity to majorarterials are preferred over sites without majorarterial access. Areas in close proximity to a majorarterial generally have better road access forEcoPark users. Sites within one mile of a majorarterial ranked (3), sites within two miles of amajor arterial or one mile of a minor arterial wereranked (2), and sites more than two miles from amajor or minor arterial were ranked (1).

Capacity of Nearby Roadsand Intersections

Ideally, the EcoPark would be on a transportatioroute with sufficient capacity to handle trafficvolumes and patterns generated by the EcoPark.Sites with insufficient road and intersectioncapacities would require expensive upgrades, whiccould include a lengthy process of right-of-wayacquisitions and road/intersection realignments.Sites within an existing roadway network capable handling the EcoPark traffic were ranked (3), sites

where the existing roadway network would requiresome improvements were ranked (2), and sites whthe existing roadway network is at or over capacityand would require significant improvements to

handle EcoPark traffic, were ranked (1).

Proximity to Highway 50

Highway (Hwy) 50 is the main route thattraverses El Dorado County. The closer the EcoPais to Hwy 50, the better access the community willhave. Sites less than two (2) miles from Hwy 50

were ranked (3), sites that were two (2) to four (4)miles from Hwy 50 were ranked (2), and sitesgreater than 4 miles from Hwy 50 were ranked (1)

Local Road Improvement Costs

This criteria includes rough cost estimates ofpotential improvements needed to addressexisting deficiencies in local road conditions andcapacity. Sites with minimal local roadimprovement requirements ranked (3), sites withaverage local road improvement requirementsranked (2), and sites with significant local roadimprovement requirements ranked (1).

Regional Road CapacityImprovement Costs

his criteria includes rough cost estimates ofpotential improvements needed to addressexisting deficiencies in regional road conditionsand capacity. Sites where minimal regional roadcapacity improvements are required ranked (3),





sites where average regional road capacityimprovements are required ranked (2), and sites where significant regional capacity improvementsare required ranked (1).

1.4. Biological Resources Impacts

Important Biological Corridors

Sites not near an important Biological Corridor(based on inventory for the Integrated NationalResources Management Plan for El DoradoCounty) were ranked (3); and sites near animportant Biological Corridor were ranked (1).

Pine Hill Areas/Recovery Plan Area

Sites identified as Pine Hill Areas with norecovery plan area (based on inventory for theIntegrated National Resources Management Planfor El Dorado County) were ranked (3); and sites within Pine Hill Areas and within a recovery planarea were ranked (1).

Proximity to Oak WoodlandConservation Areas

Locating a potential EcoPark within Oak

Woodland Conservation Areas should be avoideddue to the potential for environmental impacts.Based on a review of the Oak Woodland PriorityConservation Areas (PCA’s), sites not locatednear the designated conservation areas wereranked (3); sites located in the vicinity of adesignated conservation area were ranked (2);andsites located within a designated conservationarea were ranked (1).

1.5. Site Economic Criteria

Publicly Owned

Publicly owned parcels are considered mostfavorable. No acquisition costs are involved ifthe parcel is County-owned, and reduced orminimal costs are involved for City-ownedparcels. Developing a publicly-owned site also

shortens the development schedule as no lengthyreal estate transactions are required. Sites publiclyowned were ranked (3), and sites not publiclyowned were ranked (1).

Development CostSites that are easy to develop are preferred over

sites which require substantial improvements toslopes, grading, drainage, and clearing. Based onvisual inspections, sites with minimal necessaryimprovements were ranked (3), sites requiringmoderate improvements were ranked (2), and sitesrequiring significant improvements were ranked (1).

In addition to the physical improvementsconsidered for the sites evaluated, economics

were indirectly taken into consideration in eachof the other ranking criteria evaluated (i.e., sites

with costly transportation and permitting issues were ranked lower than those without).

2.1. Conclusions fromSecondary Site Selection

The following eight (8) sites were carriedthrough the primary ranking criteria then rankedbased upon the secondary criteria discussedabove. The sites for the potential new EcoParklocation are grouped below, based on theircompatibility with overall County objectives.

Highly compatible with County objectives Cameron Park 2 (Durock Road) Greater Placerville (Industrial Drive) Cameron Park 1 (Durock Road)

Very compatible with County objectives Latrobe

Camino / Apple Hill

Moderately compatible with County objectives Existing WERS (Throwita Way) Union Mine Landfill South Shingle.



Appendix F

Union Mine Landfill SiteUtilization Assessment



Appendix F Union Mine LandfillSite Utilization Assessment

The Union Mine Disposal Site and Septage Treatment Facility (UMDS) is the only

active, permitted landfill on the West Slope of El Dorado County. In order for theCounty to internalize its waste stream, reduce disposal costs, and minimize environmenimpacts from long-hauling refuse to out-of-County facilities, the County will evaluatere-opening the UMDS to accept Class II municipal solid waste. This appendix discussethe likely regulatory, design, and operational requirements for re-opening the UMDSfor disposal of Class II municipal solid waste.

A. Current Status of Union Mine LandfillThe UMDS is operated by the County of El Dorado Environmental Management

Department (County). UMDS is a fully permitted solid waste disposal facility. Mainoperations include an approximately 42.3 acre landfill footprint, made up of a closed36.3-acre Class III old landfill area, and an active 6.0-acre Class II landfill area. Theremainder of the facility is used for a Class II surface impoundment, leachate andseptage treatment facility, and for spray fields.

The UMDS is not currently open to the general public. The 6.0-acre Class II landfillarea is presently used on an as-needed or contingent basis, and is permitted to receive uto 300 tons per day of non-hazardous-general; non-hazardous sludge; designated waste

and hazardous-friable asbestos under Solid Waste Facilities Permit (SWFP) No. 09-AA0003 and Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R5-2006-0020.

UMDS facilities include: A scale and scale house A closed Class III landfill A Class II surface impoundment A household hazardous waste storage (HHWS) and transfer facility An active Class II landfill Gas and groundwater monitoring and control facilities

Leachate/septage treatment facilities Sedimentation basins (north, south and west) Soil stockpile Spray fields (north and south) Other support structures and facilities.

The site plan shown asFigure F-1, on page F-3, provides the site’s currentgeneral configuration.



Appendix F Union Mine Landfill Site Utilization Assessment

F-2 El Dorado County Solid Waste Management Plan

B. Historic Overview ofUnion Mine Landfill

In 1994, the County hired a consultant toredesign the UMDS final grading plan so that it

included a 26.5-acre expansion area, in additionto the existing 36.3-acre Class III old landfillarea. This final grading plan proposed amaximum landfill elevation of 1,500 feet abovemean sea level (msl).

This UMDS expansion design was presentedin an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) whichthe County Board of Supervisors certified inMay, 1994. However, in 1997, the Union MineRoad was closed due to a minor landslide.

Subsequently, the County began to direct allmunicipal solid waste formerly hauled to theUMDS out-of-County.

In 2004, the County modified the proposedUMDS landfill expansion design to include 6.0acres of the proposed 26.5 acres, for disposal ofClass II waste. At that time, the County alsobegan phased closure of the 36.3-acre Class IIIold landfill area.

According to the latest UMDS SWFP, the6.0-acre Class II landfill expansion area has a totaldesign capacity of approximately 195,000 cubicyards. As of June 2011, the remaining capacity ofthe 6.0-acre expansion are was approximately102,145 cubic yards.

C. Regulatory Requirementsfor Potential Expansion ofUnion Mine Landfill

Operation of a Class II/III landfill in the Stateof California requires approvals from the Stateand local agencies with jurisdiction over thehandling and disposal of non-hazardous solid waste. This subsection lists responsible agencies with jurisdiction over the UMDS.

California Department of ResourceRecovery and Recycling (CalRecyle)/PlacerCounty Health and Human Services

All Class II/III solid waste facilities must havea SWFP issued by the local enforcement agency(LEA). The LEA for UMDS is the Placer CountyHealth and Human Services, Department ofEnvironmental Health. The SWFP must be“concurred on” by CalRecycle.

The SWFP places conditions on general designparameters, operations, and closure of the solid waste facility. The SWFP includes monitoringrequirements. UMDS operates under SWFP No.09-AA-0003. A proposed UMDS expansionrequires a revised SWFP application to updatepermit terms and conditions so they reflect theexpansion design and new or changed operations.

The primary supporting document used for aSWFP revision is the Joint Technical Document(JTD). The JTD combines technical informationrequired under a Report of Disposal SiteInformation required by the LEA and CalRecycle;and Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) requiredby the State of California Regional Water Quality

Control Board. The JTD contains information ona site’s operation, engineering design, and site andsurrounding area characteristics.1

In addition to the JTD, 27 CCR requiressubmittal of a Preliminary Closure/Post-ClosureMaintenance Plan (PCPCMP) in support of theSWFP application. The PCPCMP providesinformation used to prepare closure and post-closuremaintenance cost estimates. These estimates, in turn,are used to annually fund the closure account to

provide for an environmentally sound closure andthirty (30) years of post-closure maintenance.

1 The JTD is prepared in accordance with contentrequirements mandated in Title 27 of the California Code ofRegulations (27 CCR), Sections 21590 and 21600.



Figure F-1Union Mine Disposal Site and Septage Treatment FacilitySite Plan








F-5

Table F-1Union Mine LandfillDiminishing Capacity Existing 6-Acre Class II Landfill

An approved financial assurance mechanismthat demonstrates financial responsibility foroperating liability claims (environmentalimpairment liability) also is required.2

California Regional Water QualityControl Board (RWQCB)

The State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB) requires Class III solid waste disposalfacilities to obtain Waste Discharge

2 The financial assurance mechanism must be updatedannually pursuant to 27 CCR, Section 22215.

Requirements (WDRs). The RWQCB-CentralValley is the local agency under the SWRCB with

jurisdiction and authority to issue site-specific WDRs for the UMDS.

The UMDS currently operates under WDROrder No. 2006-0019, including a Monitoringand Reporting Program. As previously discussed,the JTD, containing information required for anROWD, will be the primary support document foramending UMDS’s WDRs to include expansionoperations. This JTD will be the permit documentused to revise the existing UMDS WDRs.





The RWQCB also regulates municipal andindustrial stormwater discharge requirements underthe National Pollutant Discharge EliminationSystem (NPDES) program. To obtain authorizationfor industrial stormwater discharges, a landfillmust comply with a General Permit to DischargeStormwater Associated with Industrial Activity. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)and Stormwater Monitoring Plan (SMP) (datedOctober 2010) were prepared for the UMDS.This monitoring is performed under WDR OrderNo. 2006-0019 and Order No. 97-03-DWQ.

The SWPPP will need to be amended, asnecessary, to reflect any changes in construction,operations, or maintenance procedures whichmay cause the discharge of significant quantitiesof pollutants to surface water, groundwater, or alocal agency's storm drain system.

California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) documentation

The UMDS has the following approvedCEQA and CEQA related documents:

Final Environmental Impact Report(EIR), dated January, 1992

Special Use Permit Application andFindings/Conditions of Approval for S91-28, approved by the El Dorado CountyPlanning Commission on February 27, 1992

Addendum to the EIR for the Expansion/Closure of the Union Mine Disposal Site,El Dorado County, California, preparedby County of El Dorado, PlanningDepartment, dated April 1994

Conformed agenda certifying Addendum

to the EIR, County of El Dorado Board ofSupervisors, dated May 10, 1994.

Although the above documents allow forexpansion of the UMDS to a maximum elevationof 1,500 feet msl, and a total disposal acreage of59.5 acres; the documents are dated and theCounty will need new/updated analyses of special

study areas. Special study areas will include, but notbe limited to: biological resources, water resources,geology/soils, air quality, traffic and circulation,hazardous materials/infectious waste, human healthand safety, noise, public services, aesthetics/visualresources, land use, and cultural resources.

Other Permits

The UMDS operates under the followingadditional permits:

Air Pollution Permit, Permit to Operate,issued by the El Dorado County AirQuality Management District to operate alandfill gas collection and control system with a wastewater injection system

Notification No. II-413-93, AgreementRegarding Proposed Stream or Lake Alteration, Martinez Creek, El DoradoCounty, California, approved by the Stateof California Department of Fish andGame on August 26, 1993.

The County will need to review and updatethe above permits, as appropriate, for a proposedUMDS expansion.

D. Operational RequirementsThe UMDS is designed and operated in

compliance with Class II and Class III landfillstandards set forth in 27 CCR regulations and inFederal regulations, known as Subtitle D,promulgated under 40 CFR, Parts 257 and 258.One of the most important aspects of Subtitle D(40 CFR, Section 258.40) requires municipalsolid waste landfill operators to construct a

composite or approved engineered alternativeliner system.3

3 Required in new waste management units, lateralexpansions, or areas within a previously permitted wastemanagement unit which had not had refuse placed in it as ofOctober 9, 1993



F-7

Subtitle D defines a composite liner as asystem consisting of two low-permeabilitycomponents, in lieu of previous Staterequirements for a one-component system. Theupper component must consist of a minimum30-mil flexible membrane liner (FML) and thelower component must consist of at least a two-foot layer of compacted soil with a hydraulicconductivity of no greater than 1 x 10-7 cm/sec.4 Additionally, the County will need to install aleachate collection and removal system (LCRS)above the composite liner system with the designcapability to maintain less than a 30 cm (12inches) depth of leachate over the liner.

The UMDS’s closed Class III landfill area wasdeveloped prior to the requirements for a linersystem in Class III landfills. However, when theUMDS 6-acre Class II expansion area wasconstructed, this area included an engineeredalternative liner.5

For a proposed expansion area, which goesbeyond the existing footprint, the County willneed to install a composite liner and LCRS.Current WDRs do not allow expansion of the

current approved alternative liner system, unlessthe County submits a liner performancedemonstration.6 The WDR also requires thatnew UMDS landfill units have a composite liner with (1) a 60 mil HDPE FLM and (2) either twofeet of compacted soil with a hydraulicconductivity of no greater than 1 x 10-7 cm/sec, ora geocomposite clay liner (GCL).

4 FML components consisting of high-density polyethylene(HDPE) must be at least 60-mil thick.

5 In place of the two-foot layer of compacted soil, the 6 acreexpansion area has a geocomposite clay liner (GCL) with ahydraulic conductivity of no greater than 1 x 10 -7 cm/sec.

6 Should the liner performance demonstration indicate thatthe alternative liner is performing equivalent to theprescriptive requirement, then it may be possible to proposeand design the same liner for an expansion.

E. Potential Union MineLandfill Expansion Scenariosand Logistics

An evaluation was performed for adding capaci

to the UMDS with a future landfill expansion. ThCounty will consider the following two potentialUMDS expansion scenarios:

Expansion Scenario 1: Use the remaininglateral fill area previously approved in the1994 EIR. Closed portions of the UMDS would remain closed, and fill wouldcontinue from below the closed southernslopes to the drainage channel south of thelandfill footprint.Figures F-2 and F-3, beginning on page F-9, show excavation

and fill plans for this scenario. Expansion Scenario 2: Remove the finalcover on the closed portions, and fill theentire footprint to a maximum elevationof 1,500 feet above msl as proposed andapproved in the 1994 EIR. Figure F-2 andFigure F-4 (on page F-13) showexcavation and fill plans for this scenario.

The remainder of this subsection provides adiscussion of the general geologic conditions of

the site and the excavation, fill, and protectiveand daily cover requirements proposed for theseexpansion scenarios.

1. Geotechnical Conditions atUnion Mine Landfill Site

The UMDS site is located in the westernSierra Nevada foothills in an area known as the Western Metamorphic Belt, an elongated band ofmetamorphosed sedimentary and volcanic rocksthat were strongly deformed by uplift of theSierra Nevada mountains. The site is underlainby Jurassic-age metamorphic rocks of theMariposa formation consisting of slate, phyllite,and minor sandstone layers.

The principal planes of weakness in theMariposa Formation are foliation, essentially





Figure F-2Union Mine Disposal Site and Septage Treatment FacilityExcavation Plan Expansion Scenarios 1 & 2








Figure F-3Union Mine Disposal Site and Septage Treatment FacilityExcavation Scenario 1 Final Grading Plan








Figure F-4Union Mine Disposal Site and Septage Treatment FacilityExcavation Scenario 2 Final Grading Plan








F-15

support the existing loads placed on the slopedue to the existing Class III area adjacent to thenortherly slope. Further cutting could reduce theability of the slope to support the existing fill.7

An important consideration in evaluatingthe potential UMDS expansion is thepresence of abandoned underground minetunnels and shafts. An underground goldmine, which operated from the 1860sthrough the 1940s, underlies part of thefacility. According to the UMDS WDRs,three mine tunnels, one mine adit, onestope, and one mine shaft are in the vicinityof the Class II and III landfill areas.

The Monitoring & Reporting Program for WDR Order No. R5-2006-0020 requiresmonitoring of surface discharges from mine workings. Based on the preliminary layoutof the excavation plan, and the knowngeneral vicinity of these shafts and tunnels,excavation may impact the plug and capon several of these mine features as well asseveral monitoring wells. The SpringfieldShaft and Adit, the Golden Gate Tunnel,and the Pendar Tunnel are all located within the boundary of the conceptualproposed excavation limits. Also located within these limits are groundwatermonitoring well UM-3, and monitoringpoints for groundwater drains and surface water. The County will need to conductadditional research, investigation and fieldexploration to clearly define the potentialimpacts, and design mitigation measures,necessary for permitting and final designof the lateral expansion in this area.

The Class II area was left out of theexpansion excavation as it has substantialcapacity to continue receiving sludge and;therefore, the need to site and permit anexpanded Class II area for receiving sludge will be postponed.

7 This would also need to be substantiated with additionalgeotechnical analysis. Given an adequate factor of safety forthe cut slope with existing fill adjacent to it, a steeper slopeincline could be employed.

3. Fill Requirements forUnion Mine Expansion

Expansion Scenario 1 proposes filling to amaximum elevation of 1,323 feet above msl at anapproximate 2.5:1 slope, with 15-foot wide benchspaced every 50 vertical feet. Expansion Scenarioavoids the closed Class III area, providing a low-end capacity potential with additional capacitygained by filling against the entire Class IIIsoutherly slope.

Expansion Scenario 2 proposes filling theentire footprint to a maximum elevation of 1,500feet above msl at approximate 2.6:1 to 2.75:1slopes, with 15-foot wide benches spaced every50 vertical feet. This scenario provides a high-endrange of capacity potential for the site.

For Expansion Scenario 2, some existing finalcover material, placed during closure of the oldClass III area, likely will be removed due to thepotential instability of additional fill materialplaced over the existing geomembrane (GCL)final cover. There is the potential that differentialsettlement could cause low spots along the GCLif it is left in place. Cover soil will be removed to

a thickness of one foot, then stockpiled, and usedduring the expansion activities.8

4. Protective and Daily Cover Requirements

Due to the area geology, and the amount of rockcontained in it, the County will need a borrowsource to provide suitable protective and dailycover. The County will maximum use of alternativdaily covers (e.g., tarps or dried sludge incombination with suitable soils) in order to reducethe required amount of daily cover. A primary goaof daily cover is to limit percolation. Thus, dailycover should have a significant clay content.

8 Existing cover material should be removed sequentially, asrequired by the filling operation, to minimize areas exposedto percolation, and reduce the required stockpile area.





F-17

Table F-2Union Mine LandfillDiminishing Capacity Expansion Scenario 1

Table F-3Union Mine LandfillDiminishing Capacity Expansion Scenario 2





Additionally, a school was constructed alongUnion Mine Road near SR-49. This schoollocation complicates traffic control issues sincethe County expects that most traffic traveling tothe landfill will be large transfer trucks. Thesetrucks are in direct conflict with school traffic,during certain portions of the day, and this couldcause a safety issue in the vicinity of the school.However, the County will set waste deliverytimes to prohibit access by transfer trucks duringschool drop-off and pick-up times.

Based on the existing pavement width (estimatedat approximately 22 feet (+/-)),Union Mine Roaddoes not provide sufficient room for traffic to passin the event of a vehicle breakdown. This couldaffect school, and residential, traffic in the area as well as pose safety risks for traffic that will need toget around a broken down vehicle.

Another design consideration is that UnionMine Road has hairpin turns which, in theircurrent configuration, do not accommodate a 65to 70 foot long transfer truck at any speed.

Increasing Union Mine Road to a desirable width (between 35 and 40 feet in total) requires

modifying existing property access roads anddriveways, relocating existing power poles, andreconstructing existing fences at new locations.Some of these efforts are relatively substantial, onthe west side of the road, due to gradedifferentials between the existing Union MineRoad grades and proposed grades. At this time, itis unknown how substantial property acquisitionefforts would be, but it is likely this roadwaymodification effort would be substantial.

There are additional concerns regarding publicacceptance of landfill traffic on Union MineRoad due to the rural atmosphere of the area.Property owners against the project could holdup the project until an acceptable agreement isnegotiated. Therefore, the required timing forthis option could be very lengthy.

Due to the concerns outlined above, and thetime and money required to deal with the propertyissues mentioned, rendering a comprehensive costestimate to improve the existing Union Mine Roadis difficult. An estimate for pavement costs toimprove the road to a width of 40 feet, and apavement section capable of handling transfertruck loads placed on the road is approximately$3,000,000. An estimate for additional costs toaddress all of the other issues mentioned abovelikely would bring Union Mine Road improvementcosts to within the $5 to $10 million dollar range.

New Union Mine Landfill Access Road

The second option involves constructing a

“new” dedicated access road (seeFigure F-7, onpage F-23) with the location of SR-49approximately one mile due west of the landfill.Obstacles to this alternative access are adjacentproperty owners and hilly terrain.

A preliminary conceptual road alignment showsit would be possible to construct a two-lane road,approximately 40 feet in total width over the hill while maintaining a gradient of 6 percent or less.This design uses a combination of 2:1 and 1:1 cutand fill slopes along the edges of the road.9

This new UMDS access road would be adedicated road for the sole use of very largetransfer trucks. The road width, turning radii, andpavement section must handle the load of theselarge trucks. The road width, proposed at 40 feet,provides a 12 foot wide traffic lane and an 8 foot wide breakdown lane/shoulder in each direction.This configuration will minimize traffic safetyconcerns in the event of a breakdown.

To keep earthwork costs down, the proposedUMDS access road design maintains a maximumcenterline grade of 6 percent. Also, to determinethe radii in corners that accommodates a 69-foot

9 Actual slopes would need to be determined bygeotechnical analysis.



Figure F-5Union Mine Disposal Site and Septage Treatment FacilityCapacity For Scenario 1








Figure F-6Union Mine Disposal Site and Septage Treatment FacilityCapacity For Scenario 2








Figure F-7Union Mine Disposal Site and Septage Treatment FacilityProposed Alternative Access Road








F-25

long transfer truck, the road configurationreflects a design speed of 15 mph. Increasing thedesign speed incrementally increases these radii,and increases the earthwork and associated roadconstruction costs.

Total estimated construction costs for the newUMDS access road are approximately $14 milliondollars.10 This estimate reflects approximately 1million cubic yards (cy) of earth that the County will need to excavate at an approximate cost of$3.00 per cy. The road also will require the Countyto place approximately 63,000 cy of fill at anapproximate cost of $3.00 per cy. The proposedpavement section was 6 inches AC over 12 to 18inches of CAB, for the entire length (2.87 miles)and width (40 feet). Much of the road length would require k-rail type concrete barriers, orthree beam guard rails, at an approximate cost of$50.00 or $23.00 per linear foot, respectively.

The above $14 million estimate does notinclude right-of-way acquisition costs. Propertyacquisition issues are unknown in this area.However, the number of properties affected issubstantially less than the number of properties

affected by improving Union Mine Road. Also,the approximate construction costs of this newaccess road likely could be affected with moreaccurate topography, different design speeds,reduced transfer truck length, or alternativepavement section thicknesses. The cost estimatesprovided above likely are conservative.

To obtain more accurate construction costs,the County will need to conduct further researchand make design refinements. This research will

include an updated topographic map of theproposed roadway area, evaluation of discussions with local property owners to determinecooperation levels, and discussion between the

10 Equivalent to $2.5 million per mile. Construction costs of theproposed access road would be estimated more closelybased on a refined design.

County and potential haulers to determine designspeeds and truck length options.

This new access road design assumestermination at the existing UMDS scales. The

County also could incorporate a new and/orimproved entrance area as part of this new accessroad alignment. In this case, the existing scalearea could be utilized, but with newimprovements for traffic flow and efficiency.

The scales/scale house would, however, needto be relocated as part of the final phase of fillfor Expansion Scenario 2. Expansion Scenario 2includes fill in the northwest corner of thelandfill expansion which is the current location

for the scales/scale house facilities.

I. Landfill Gas MigrationControl and MonitoringSystem Improvements

The County will expand the existing landfillgas (LFG) migration control and monitoringsystem under either expansion scenario. In theexpansion areas, the County will develop a series

of horizontal and vertical extraction wells,perimeter collection trenches, and collectionlaterals, connected to a main header pipe leadingto the flare station and/or a gas-to-energy facility.

During active operations, the County will use acombination of vertical and horizontal collectionpipes installed incrementally to provide ongoingenvironmental control. Extracted gas will betransported to a flare station, and/or gas-to-energyfacility, through gas headers. Requirements for

the number of flares, as well as the possibility ofoperating a gas-to-energy facility, will depend onthe amount of LFG generated. Perimeter gasmigration monitoring probes also will be required1

11 Per current 27 CCR requirements, probes are required at1,000 foot spacing, and the depth of the deepest probe mustbe at the maximum depth of refuse.





J. Groundwater Monitoring SystemRe-opening, and expansion, of the UMDS

will require review of the existing groundwatermonitoring system. The UMDS groundwater

system was developed to comply with 27 CCR, Article 1, requirements as implemented throughsite-specific WDR Order No. 2006-0019, issued bythe Central Valley RWQCB. Specifically, the waterquality protection standards include: establishmentof monitoring systems for groundwater, surface water and the unsaturated or vadose zone,including background and compliance monitoringpoints for each medium; constituents of concern;monitoring parameters; and a monitoring protocoland compliance period.

Overall objectives of the water qualitymonitoring system are to:

Characterize background groundwater quality Detect changes in water quality that may

result from changes in groundwaterrecharge or possible landfill leakage orlandfill gas impacts

Monitor groundwater elevations andgradients to determine groundwater flow

directions and velocities.

K. Drainage Control SystemThe existing surface water drainage control

system at the UMDS will be expanded andimproved under either expansion scenario. Thedrainage system will be designed to accommodate100-year, 24-hour storm event run-off volumes,in accordance with 27CCR. Interim drainage anderosion control features and procedures will beinstituted during active disposal operations and will include fill area grading, down drains,earthen berms and sedimentation basins.

These upgrades will provide ongoing storm water collection and conveyance in a controlledmanner and will minimize erosion, ponding, and

the potential for excess leachate generation andsurface water contamination. Most of the interimdrainage control system facilities (e.g., perimeterstorm drains, sedimentation basins) will beutilized as part of the final drainage controlsystem for the site.

L. Facility Utilization Analysis

1. Franchise/Commercial Collection Vehiclesand Self-Haul Customer Utilization

County waste will be initially delivered to theEcoPark for processing, and then the residualmunicipal solid waste transferred to the UMDSvia 20-ton transfer trailers. No franchised orcommercial collection vehicles will access the site.The County will direct self-haul customers to theEcoPark, and residual wastes from thesecustomers will be loaded into transfer trailers.Limiting access to transfer trailers streamlines thedisposal process at the UMDS, and the County will have more control over site traffic andunloading operations.

2. Union Mine Landfill Vs.Long-Haul Disposal

In consideration of re-opening the UMDS, itis important to compare the benefits of disposingin-County or continuing with long-haul disposalout-of-County. Currently, waste from the WestSlope of the County, which would come to theUMDS, is delivered to Potrero Hills Landfill inSolano County. Potential benefits of continuingthis option are:

Lower operational/maintenance costs No improvement costs for the UMDS.

Potential cons of continuing long-haul disposal are: Costs/fees/risks because the facility is not

under the County’s control High fuel costs to long-haul refuse



F-27

Higher tipping fees Future requirement purchase green house

gas emission credits for impacts toenvironment from long haul emissions.

Re-opening and expansion of the UMDSprovides the following potential benefits:

Provides the County control overcosts/fees/risks associated with managingthe County’s solid waste

Provides host fee revenues for the County.

Potential cons to re-opening and expandingthe UMDS are:

Costs to improve/expand the UMDS

Increased operational/maintenance costs. Regulatory and permitting hurdles

M. Land Use ImpactsCurrent existing land uses at the UMDS

include the following: A 6.0-acre Class II landfill area A 36.3-acre Class III old landfill area

A Class II surface impoundment El Dorado County shooting range Household hazardous waste storage

(HHWS) and transfer facility Leachate/septage treatment facility Spray fields Three sedimentation basins.

Re-opening, and expanding, the UMDS willonly impact the landfill footprint itself. Existingon-site roads, and ancillary facilities, can remainin-place and continue to function as they do now.The Class II surface impoundment, leachate/septatreatment facility, spray fields, and shooting rangealso can remain as they are now, and continueoperating. As part of the proposed expansion,the County will excavate and fill the westsedimentation basin with waste. The County will need to evaluate the need to replace and/orrelocation this basin. The County will also needto evaluate the capacity of the two remainingbasins in light of the proposed expansion.

N. Development CostsTable F-4, on the next page provides a summar

of preliminary estimated Union Mine Landfilldevelopment costs. Costs are expressed on a per tof capacity basis for each of the two scenarios. Tocosts reflect a landfill development cost portionand a road improvement cost portion. Costs areshown for a low and high cost range. For scenario1, the costs range from $31.75 to $76.29 per ton

of additional landfill capacity and for scenario 2,the costs range from $15.87 to $32.30 per ton ofadditional landfill capacity. These landfill costsdo not include landfill operating costs. Also, formeaningful interpretations of these data, theselandfill development costs will need to be includein a total system cost comparison (includinglandfill operating costs, transfer, and transport)and compared to the current total system costs.





Table F-4Total Union Mine Landfill Development and Road Improvement Costs(Not Inclusive of Operating Costs)

ExpansionScenario

Landfill Development Cost 1 Road Improvement Costs 2 Total Cost 3 ($/ton) Range ($/ton) Low ($/ton) High ($/ton)

Scenario 1(1.1 million ton capacity) 8.11 – – – –

Existing Road–

Low 32.7340.84 76.29

High 68.18

Alternative Road–

Low 23.6431.75 49.93

High 41.82

Scenario 2 (3 million ton capacity) 7.17 – – – –

Existing Road–

Low 12.0619.23 32.30

High 25.13

Alternative Road–

Low 8.7015.87 22.57High 15.40

Notes:1 Development costs include liner construction, liner design/support, final closure, final closure design/support, gas collection/

monitoring system expansion, groundwater monitoring system expansion, and permitting (CEQA, SWFP and WDRs).2 Road improvement costs include two options 1) improve existing road and 2) construct alternative road. Both options include

improvement costs for Highway 49. High and low cost options are presented due to uncertainty in property acquisition costsand right-of-way fees.

3 Total costs are presented as a development cost/ton of capacity for each scenario including each road option and the high andlow range for each road option. The total cost is the sum of the landfill development cost and the road option cost.



Appendix G

Alternative Technologies forDisposal and Diversion



Appendix G Alternative Technologies for

Disposal and DiversionThis appendix provides an overview and background information on alternative

technologies for disposal and diversion of municipal solid waste (MSW). El DoradoCounty is considering options for alternative waste management technologies withinthe planning horizon of this 2011 Solid Waste Management Plan. Alternativetechnologies can include traditional Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facilities or newer state-of-the-art Conversion Technologies (CT) which are comprised of thermal, biological,chemical, and mechanical processes.

WTE facilities have been widely used in the United States since the 1980s. Publicsector interest in conversion technologies has increased in recent years, based on thedesire to enhance recycling and the beneficial use of waste materials, reduce dependenon landfills and imported fossil fuels, and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

This appendix provides information on the current state of WTE and CT and thepotential utilization of such facilities in El Dorado County. The remainder of thisappendix is organized as follows:

A. Waste-to-EnergyB. Conversion TechnologiesC. Current County Considerations

D. Conclusion.

A. Waste-to-Energy

Introduction

Worldwide, there are 776 WTE facilities processing approximately 140 million tonsper day of waste. WTE is common in overseas locations that have high populationdensities, limited available landfill space, and high energy demands. Western Europehas 388 WTE plants and Asia has 301 WTE plants.1

Conventional WTE is the most commonly used municipal solid waste volumereduction technology in the United States. Nationwide, there are 87 WTE facilitiesoperating in 25 states, disposing of nearly 29 million tons of MSW per year. Thesefacilities also generate over 2,700 megawatts of electricity, enough to power more than2.4 million homes. These WTE facilities are commonly constructed with two or three

1 WSA, 2007 Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants.





G-3

"combustion facilities” not "conversion facilities."Diversion credits are allowed for existing facilities only.

B. Conversion Technologies

Introduction

Conversion Technologies are for the most parta subset of WTE, in that they produce a fuel thatcan be converted to energy and may also produceadditional products like compost and feedstockchemicals for industry. Conversion technologiesinclude thermal, biological, chemical, andmechanical processes that can convert MSW intosteam, electricity, hydrogen, natural gas, ethanol,

biodiesel, chemicals and other useful products.Conversion technologies offer many potential

benefits, including: enhanced recycling and beneficialuse of waste; diversion of significant amounts of waste from landfills; reduction in greenhouse gasesand other emissions, and production of neededrenewable products with strong year-round markets(electricity, gas, fuels). Conversion technologies aresuccessfully used to manage solid waste in Europe,Israel, Japan, and Asia.

Status of Conversion Technologies

Public sector interest in conversion technologies isincreasing in the United States. Many wide-ranging jurisdictions, such as: New York City; Lake County,Indiana; St. Lucie County, Florida; Taunton,Massachusetts; and in California, Los Angeles,Santa Barbara, and Sacramento have conducted, orare in the midst of conducting, investigations andinitiatives. Many earlier investigations focused onidentifying new and emerging technologies andcompiling technical, environmental and financialinformation for such technologies.

While there have been pilot demonstration ofbiological and thermal CT in the United States,the absence of larger-scale commercial facilities in

North America has been an obstacle to demonstrathe capabilities and benefits of these technologiesfor processing MSW. Currently, the first suchcommercial thermal demonstration plant (Plasco –plasma arc gasification) is now in full operationin Ottawa, Ontario, Canada after an extensivetwo-year start-up and retrofit period.

Several jurisdictions in California (i.e., City ofLos Angeles, County of Los Angeles, City of PasRobles, City of San Diego, County of SanBernardino, City and County of Santa Barbara,Glendale, the Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority, and the County of Orange) are eitherundertaking feasibility studies or are in variousprocurement stages for developing CT projects.

On the commercial scale, only two CT vendorsare able to provide a commercial plant as small as100 to 150 tons per day: GEM America and Adaptive ARC. Other vendors could accommodata 100 ton per day site by constructing only onemodule; however these vendors typically prefer tobuild at least two modules for redundancy andbetter economies of scale. Other vendors, such as, ArrowBio, could build a plant at a slightly higher

150 ton per day range, but caution that the costis significantly higher than for a 300 ton per daytwo line plant. El Dorado County would need topartner with other entities in the region to supporta larger waste stream, for a CT facility.

Challenges to Development ofConversion Technologies

Current challenges to conversion technologydevelopment in California (and the UnitedStates) include:

Lack of commercial demonstration Lack of development and acceptance Regulatory hurdles for product use Inconsistent qualifications for renewable

energy credits





G-5

Exhibit G-1Conversion Technology Suppliers by Technology Category

Thermal Processing Biological Processing

Gasification Anaerobic Digestion

Bioengineering Resources, Inc. Arrow Ecology and Engineering

Dynecology Canada CompostingEbara Corporation EcocorpEcosystems Projects KAME/DePlano

Entech Solutions New BioGlobal Alternative Green Energy OrgaworldGlobal Energy Solutions Organic Waste Systems

Global Recycling Group VagronGreen Energy Corporation Waste Recovery Systems, Inc. (Valorga)

ILS Partners/Pyromex Composting

Interstate Waste Technologies (Thermoselect) Bedminster

KAME/DePlano ConporecPrimenergy HerhofTaylor Recycling Facility Engineered Compost Systems

Thermgenics Chemical Processing

Waste Gasification Systems/Allan Environmental Hyrdolysis

Zeros Technology Holding Arkenol Fuels/Blue Fire Ethanol

Zero Waste Energy Systems Biofine/BioMeticsPlasma Gasification Genahol Powers/Ineous Bio

AdaptiveARC Masada OxyNol Alter NRG/Westinghouse3 Other

EnviroArc Technologies/Nordic American Group Changing Word Technologies

Global Environmental Technologies Mechanical Processing GSB Technologies CES Autoclaves

Integrated Environmental Technologies Cleansave Waste CorporationPeat International/Menlo International Comprehensive Resources

Plasco Energy Group EnerTech EnvironmentalSolena Group Herhof Gmbh

Startech Environmental Recycled Refuse InternationalPyrolysis Tempico

Bioconversion Technology LLC (Emerald Power) WET Systems

Eco Waste Solutions World Waste TechnologiesEntropic Technologies Corporation

GEM AmericaInternational Environmental Solutions

Pan-American Resources

3 Several project developers have proposed or are engaged in projects with the Westinghouse plasma gasification technology, includingGeoplasma and Rigel Resource Recovery



Appendix G Alternative Technologies for Disposal and Diversion

G-6 El Dorado County Solid Waste Management Plan

Table G-1MSW Conversion Technology Development Status

TechnologyCommercial Use

Outside U.S.Pilot Testing

in U.S.Additional Researchand Testing Required

Desirable forMonitoring

Anaerobic Digestion

Thermal Processing

Hydrolysis

Aerobic Digestion/Composting

Chemical Processing

Mechanical Processing

Planning Perspective. Since technologiesconsidered in this report are not yet incommercial operation in the UnitedStates, information on capital andoperating costs is generally available onlyon a planning-level basis. These costprojections are instructive to the degreethat the analyses result in order-ofmagnitude cost and tipping fee estimates. Although such estimates should not beconsidered definitive, they are useful inproviding estimates of what reasonablycould be expected of individualtechnologies and are one factor indetermining which technologies may beappropriate for further consideration.

Analytical Assumptions.In the studiesreferenced above, participating technologysuppliers were asked to provide capitaland operating cost estimates, as well asperformance data such as net energyproduced for sale and the types andvolumes of materials that could berecovered and sold. The amount ofelectricity generated and the volume ofmaterials recovered for each technology were confirmed through ARI’s independentreviews. These analyses show that theamounts of products (i.e., the energygenerated and the secondary materialsrecovered) – and therefore projecteconomics – vary between the technologies.

Cost/Benefit Considerations. In consideringalternatives to landfilling, direct costs areonly one aspect of a cost/benefit analysis. Additional considerations include:

Statutory imperatives, local policies andobjectives regarding environmentalconcerns such as recycling, renewableenergy generation, and diversion

Long-term reliability of conversiontechnologies considered

Actual costs derived from a formalRequest for Interest or Request forProposal process

Long-term outlook for energy andmaterials markets,

The future prospect of continuedlandfilling as influenced by regulatory,economic and policy matters.

On strictly a tipping fee basis, CT is currentlymore expensive than landfill disposal. As shownin the table below, the current landfill tipping feeis approximately $76 per ton, whereas CTtipping fees for smaller size plants range from$70 to $140 per ton. The small size of the wastestream in El Dorado County eliminateseconomies of scale that are critical for some ofthe CT technologies. With such a small wastestream, costs for CT can be expected to be in thehigher range rather than the lower.



G-7

Technology TypeCurrent Tipping Fees

(dollars per ton)

Landfill (El Dorado County) $76

Anaerobic Digestion $70 to $100

Thermal Conversion $70 to $140

Current County Considerations

The County recently reviewed a proposal froma technology vendor, Organic EnergyCorporation (OEC), to use a “landfill in a box”system whereby black bin post-source separated waste (i.e., mixed municipal solid waste) is sortedinto nineteen (19) constituent streams forprocessing. The processing includes both a wetstream (processed with anaerobic digestion) anddry stream. Each constituent wastestream isprocessed using proven, available technologies.The OEC believes that about two-thirds of the waste stream can be diverted. Under its proposal,the OEC fully finances the facility costs and onlyrequires that the jurisdiction furnish its waste.Currently the size of the County’s total WestSlope waste stream (300 tons per day) is not

sufficient to make this technology economicallyviable (the OEC targets 1,000 to 1,500 tons perday); however, the County will closely monitorhow this technology matures over time and whether the “landfill in a box” concept becomesan option for the County in the future.

D. ConclusionDue to increasing regulatory restrictions on

landfilling solid waste and the current energysituation in the United States, research anddevelopment of conversion technologies israpidly progressing. Many new technologies arecurrently being developed and put into operationby numerous companies on a trial basis.

Technologies such as WTE and CT will needto be further evaluated to determine if renewableenergy from these technologies is feasible for theCounty’s waste stream. An assessment will needto determine if such technologies are generallypractical and feasible for the County. Key issuesthat will need to be evaluated in such anassessment include:

1. Site Evaluation

2. Waste Stream Flow Control

3. Permitting

4. Waste Diversion Credits

5. Support for CT in the Community

6. Risk7. Power Generation/Value of Electricity

8. Alternative Fuels

9. Pilot, Demonstration, or CommercialScale CT

10. AB 32 Greenhouse Gas (GHG)Reductions

11. Cost/Benefit of CT versus Disposal

The El Dorado County EcoPark design conceptincludes approximately five ( 5) acres for a potentfuture CT facility. An economically viable, state-othe-art waste facility incorporating both MRF andCT would produce the highest benefit to ElDorado County residents and the environment.

At this point, the small volume of the County’s waste stream is an impediment. There is no econoof scale, and the current volume falls at the verylowest range of commercial feasibility for both CTand WTE. In fact, for most of the technologies onthe market today to be cost effective; the minimum waste stream is 150 to 200 tons per day.

Economics of CT are likely to evolve over thenext several years, improving the potential forapplications in the County. Even now, there aretwo promising thermal technologies designed for



Appendix G Alternative Technologies for Disposal and Diversion

G-8 El Dorado County Solid Waste Management Plan

smaller communities (with wastestreams 100 to150 tons per day) that could be appropriate forEl Dorado County. The first commercialapplications of these technologies are currently instart-up mode; the County will monitor these,and other, new CT applications over time.

Next Steps

CT and WTE may be feasible in El DoradoCounty. In order to pursue a project in the nearfuture, the County should implement thefollowing steps:

1. Monitor the development of ongoing CTprojects in Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Salinas

and other areas of California and Nevada.

2. Monitor and support legislation in Sacramentothat would support development of CTs inCalifornia, such as the recently vetoed AB 222.

3. Pursue discussion with other local jurisdictions related to aggregating their waste

streams for a potential regional CT projectNeed to consider transportation costs.

4. Conduct a specific analysis of thefollowing:

a. WTE: Modular combustion unitsgenerating steam or electricity.

b. CT: The two vendors that can develop acommercial scale plan at 100 tons per day.

c. CT: Vendors that would be willing todevelop a “demonstration” 50 tons per

day plant.



Appendix H

El Dorado County GIS Map– Unincorporated Parcels



Appendix H El Dorado County GIS Map –

Unincorporated ParcelsExhibit H-1, on page H-3, provides an example GIS map identifying the number

of developed residential parcels by zip code for the unincorporated County. This mapexcludes El Dorado Hills Community Service District, Cameron Park CommunityService District, and the Cities of Placerville and South Lake Tahoe. The number ofparcels refers to the number of developed residential parcels, as shown by the yellowboxes. The number of units refers to residential units on parcels; there may bemultiple units on a particular parcel. The preliminary analysis of percent of potentialcustomers in Table 4-2 is based on units.



Appendix H El Dorado County GIS Map – Unincorporated Parcels

H-2 El Dorado County Solid Waste Management Plan




Exhibit H-1El Dorado County Unincorporated Developed Residential Parcels

N

S

EW



Appendix H El Dorado County GIS Map – Unincorporated Parcels

H-4 El Dorado County Solid Waste Management Plan




Appendix I

Small Volume Transfer Stations



Appendix I Small Volume Transfer Stations

The Western Slope of El Dorado County is diverse in its combination of urban andrural communities. The County is challenged to site and design effective Material RecovFacilities (MRFs) that serve this urban and rural mix, and also meet County diversion go

The West Slope includes a large number of self-haulers from the various ruralcommunities. Examples of rural areas include Georgetown, Quintette, Cool, SpanishFlat, Somerset, Mt. Aukum, Grizzly Flat, and Avinsino Corner. These rural areas arerelatively far away from the existing WERS facility, and the conceptual EcoParklocations identified in Appendix E. The distance from these rural communities to theexisting WERS, and the conceptual EcoPark locations, create the potential for illegaldumping, prompt higher self-haul traffic volumes at the central facility location, andlimit rural area accessibility to full resource recycling centers/facilities.

Developing two (2) Limited Volume Transfer Operations (LVTOs) to serve theneeds of the rural West Slope communities could address illegal dumping, lower self-haul volumes at the current WERS facility and/or EcoPark, and increase Countydiversion rates. The remainder of this appendix presents permitting requirements of anLVTO, West County rural service areas, throughput analysis, and the potentialincrease in diversion by self-haulers.

A. Limited Volume Transfer Operation (LVTO)The requirements for siting, permitting, and operating a limited volume transfer

station are minimal relative to a large full-scale MRF or transfer station. According toTitle 14, California Code of Regulations (14 CCR), Section 17402(a) (9), a “LimitedVolume Transfer Operation” is defined as:

An operation that does not conduct processing activities andaccepts less than 15 tons per day (tpd) or 60 cubic yards perday (cy/day) for the purpose of waste storage prior to thetransfer of waste to another solid waste operation orfacility. This would allow the facility to receive a maximumof 4,605 tons per year, based on a 307 day per year operation.

For an LVTO, the only requirements are that prior to commencing operations theoperator (1) submit a Notification to the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) of itsintent to operate, and (2) verify compliance with local planning ordinances, whichincludes compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (14CCR, Section 17403). The operator also must prepare a Storm Water PollutionPrevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Storm Water Monitoring Program (SWMP).




I-2 El Dorado County Solid Waste Management Plan

Moreover, LVTO’s would only be inspectedby the LEA as necessary to verify compliance with State Minimum Standards. There areminimal regulatory requirements governingLVTO’s, making them a very feasible option forthe County to implement.

B. Potential Service AreasFor planning purposes, the County is divided

into nine regions as shown in Table 2-1. WestCounty includes seven of the nine regions. Theseregions are based on the Sacramento AreaCouncil of Governments (SACOG) Regional Analysis Districts (RADs).

Potential locations for the LVTOs weredetermined using a geographic analysis whichincluded a review of population densities and useof Google Earth to identify site accessibility(terrain and roads) and proximity to targetedrural communities. Service areas identified for theproposed LVTOs include two general areas: onein the north area (Georgetown/Divide, north ofHighway 50), and one in the south area(Somerset/Mt. Aukum, south of Highway 50).The potential north area LVTO would provideservice to the following RADs:

Northwest County Region – a heavily ruralarea consisting of three RADs (Coloma-Lotus, Georgetown, and Pilot Hill)

El Dorado High Country Region – aheavily rural area consisting of the El DoradoHigh Country RAD, and covering much ofthe northern County, including some of theEast Slope.

The potential south area LVTO would provideservice to the following RADs:

Mt. Aukum-Grizzly Flat Region – a heavilyrural area consisting of the Mt Aukum-Grizzly Flat RAD, covering most of thesouthern region of the County

West Central County Region – a primarilyrural area consisting of the southern half ofthe Cameron-Park-Shingle Springs RAD, plustwo additional RADs: Diamond Springs andPollock Pines. This region covers much of thearea south of Placerville and east of El DoradoHills. There would be relatively minor useof the south LVTO by this area, because amajority of the self-haulers from this regionlikely would use the existing WERS facility,or if constructed, the EcoPark.

C. Facility Throughput EstimatesTable 3-3 in Section 3 provides waste disposed,

by sector (including commercial, residential, andself-haul sectors). The self-haul sector, which would be the primary user of the proposed LVTOs,compromises approximately 20 percent of the total waste disposed in the County (38,584 tons in 2010).

Table 3-2 provides waste disposed for eachRAD. Each of the two selected general areas forLVTOs, (1) Georgetown/Divide, and (2)Somerset/Mt. Aukum, include two RADs each.

Georgetown/Divide includes the NorthwestCounty and El Dorado High Country RADs, with a combined projected total waste disposal of21,637 tons in 2030. Therefore, the maximumthroughput for the northern LVTO would equalapproximately 4,327 tons per year, or 20 percentof 21,637 tons (equal to the estimated self haulportion of waste disposed).

Somerset/Mt. Aukum includes the WestCentral County (39,632 tons in 2030) andMt. Aukum-Grizzly Flat (12,436 tons in 2030)RADs, with a total combined projected wastedisposal of 52,068 tons in 2030 (39,632 +12,436), of which an estimated 20 percent, or10,414 tons, would be self-hauled. It is expectedthat most (approximately 80 percent) of the self-haulers from the West Central County RAD willuse the WERS facility leaving 20 percent usingthe southern LVTO. As such, the maximum



I-3

throughput capacity of the southern LVTO would equal 4,072 tons per year (i.e., for WestCentral County: 39,632 x 20 percent self hauledx 20 percent using the southern LVTO; plus forMt. Aukum-Grizzly Flat: 12,436 x 20 percentself hauled and all using the southern LVTO).

Both facilities would have to be open 307 daysper year to accommodate maximum projectedtonnages. The County potentially could modifythe number of operating days once the Countyobtains sufficient usage data, and tonnage dataidentifying material types and quantities.

Diverting rural self-haulers to LVTOs wouldlessen traffic impacts and improve circulation at

the existing WERS or future EcoPark. Forexample, based on 2007 data, self-haul trips onany one day at the WERS facility peaked at morethan 600 vehicles (Source: Waste Connections).

C. Diversion Efforts at LVTOsIn an effort to increase diversion amongst self-

haulers it is recommended that the conceptualLVTOs provide additional services including a

buy-back center and roll-offs to collect Constructionand Demolition (C&D) materials, commingledrecyclables, and green/wood materials. The Countyshould charge a lower tipping fee for commingledmaterials (e.g., C&D and commingled recyclables)than that charged for municipal solid waste (MSW).

The County could potentially acceptgreen/wood material free of charge. This wouldrequire implementation of a Pay-As-You-Throw(PAYT) program as discussed below. As for buy-

back centers, they are relatively easy to establishand frequently accepted within the community.Buy-back centers provide a convenient drop offpoint for recyclable materials, and enhancediversion, while providing a cost saving incentiveto LVTO patrons. The County could easilyaccommodate a buy-back center, and additionalroll-off bins, at the LVTO’s.

The following case studies identify ruralcommunity efforts to increase self-haul diversion:

Chittenden, Rutland County, Vermont – The Solid Waste District of Rutland Countyoperates seven low volume transfer stations(LVTS) in addition to the main transferprocessing facility. These smaller drop-offcenters allow residents to dispose of refuserecyclables, and universal waste. LVTS’slocated in rural communities, as well as inurban communities, range from minor,limited-use facilities to full-service facilitieOverall, the facilities provide an alternativeto curbside refuse pick-up.

An attendant in a booth operates the LVTSfacilities, managing incoming self-haul

customers. After checking in with theattendant, customers drive forward and depoeach material into assigned tilt carts or opentop/closed-top containers. The facility charg$2 for a 30-gallon bag of refuse, $1 for a 15-gallon bag of refuse, and does not charge forrecyclables. At the larger LVTSs, bagged trais placed in 40-cubic-yard compactors; andbulky waste is placed in 40-cubic-yard, opentop containers. The smaller LVTSs only hav40-cubic-yard open-top containers.

San Luis Obispo County, California –Due to the challenges of recycling amongresidents who self-haul their waste, ColdCanyon Landfill implemented a resourcerecovery park (RRP) to accommodate self-hcustomers. The RRP, designed to promote psorting by the self-haul community, containsdifferent areas to separate various material tyanticipated from self-haul customers. Thisled to a diversion rate of nearly 67 percent.

Yakima County, Washington – To encouragmore recycling amongst self-haulers, YakimCounty raised refuse tipping fees, which in tprovided funds for more drop-off locations.The County raised tipping fees due to thenegligible tipping fee difference that had exibetween recyclable and non-recyclable loadsRecyclable loads are usually free or lower incost. The County also is considering increasmandatory curbside collection services.




I-4 El Dorado County Solid Waste Management Plan

Clark County, Washington – Clark Countyimplemented a “Recycling Rebate” program where self haul customers receive a $2 rebate when they deliver 30 gallons or more ofrecyclables which are separated, sorted, andidentifiable from loads of mixed waste.

D. Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT)at the LVTOs

Pay-As You Throw (PAYT) is a program thatencourages recycling and could be incorporatedinto the County’s LVTOs self-haul program. In aPAYT program, residents would be charged byvolume for trash. Separated recyclables would becharged at a reduced cost (or free).

Benefits of a PAYT program at the LVTOs include: Decreased waste: The Environmental

Protection Agency has stated thatmunicipalities often see a 25 to 35 percentreduction in waste.

Increased recycling: If residents pay fortrash disposal, and recycling is free orcharged at a greatly reduced fee, then theyare much more inclined to recycle.

Control of costs: Residents have controlof the direct costs that they spend ondisposal fees.

There would be no significant cost impactto the LVTO facility operation.

E. ConclusionsBased upon a high-level review of the West

Slope self-hauler origins and participation rates forresidential curbside garbage collection services,

siting LVTOs in the West Slope northern andsouthern areas would relieve some traffic andcongestion at the WERS, or EcoPark, may reduceillegal dumping, and may increase self-haulrecycling. While there is potential value of thesesmall volume transfer stations, the County willneed to conduct additional study and analysis tofully identify economic, environmental, NIMBY,and public benefit impacts.

The County will need to weigh the costs of

these facilities in light of its potential investmentsin the primary MRF/transfer station (either the WERS upgrades/modernizations, or the newEcoPark). For example, the County may concludethat a new EcoPark is sufficient to address all West Slope self haul needs, without any LVTOs.1

1 The EcoPark would improve some of the circulation issues ofthe current WERS related to self haul traffic because theEcoPark would provide more tipping lines for self-haul traffic.



Documents

3.13 El Dorado County 2012 SWMP-Vol 2